KUTTI RAJA ALIAS RAJA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982 has been challenged by the detenu himself. THE order of detention, dated 15. 10. 2004, is on the allegation that the detenu is a "goonda" as defined in Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982.

(2.) IN the grounds of detention, reference has been made to several adverse cases, including Rayappanpatty Police Station Crime No. 346 of 2004 registered under Sections 147, 148, 109, 114 and 302 I. P. C. The ground case, on the basis of which the order of detention has been passed, is registered as Rayappanpatty Police Station Crime No. 347 of 2004 under Sections 382, 506 (ii) (in the grounds of detention indicated as 546 (ii)) and 379 I. P. C. IN paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention, a reference has been made to the fact that the detenu surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dindigul, on 15. 09. 2004 in connection with Crime No. 346 of 2004 of Rayappanpatty Police station and thereafter the detenu was kept under police custody on 23. 09. 2004 and subsequently produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 24. 09. 2004. IN paragraph 9 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu has been remanded to judicial custody upto 22. 10. 2004. It has been further recited ". . . . . . However, there is an imminent possibility of moving bail and coming out on bail. I am also aware that bails are granted by the same Court or the Higher Courts in the cases of this nature after efflux of certain time. If he is let to remain at large, he is likely to indulge in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order. . . . . . "

(3.) EVEN the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also contended that the reference is to the ground case. If this be so, it is obvious that the detaining authority has not at all considered the possibility of the detenu being released on bail in respect of the earlier case where he was involved in a much more serious offence. If, on the other hand, the reference by the detaining authority is considered as a reference to the murder case, namely, Crime No. 346 of 2004, dated 13. 09. 2004, it is obvious that the detaining authority has not also considered the possibility of the detenu being released on bail in the latter case. In any event, it must be taken to be non-application of mind to relevant circumstance and the vital aspect relating to the imminent possibility of the detenu, who was admittedly in judicial custody, on being released on bail. This, in our opinion, has the effect of vitiating the order of detention.