GEEVA PEERIZ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this habeas corpus petition is to the order of detention, dated 31.08.2004, passed by the second respondent against one Ravindran (hereinafter referred as "the detenu"), branding him as a "Goonda" and directing preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). THE petitioner is the wife of the detenu.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) IN the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, while following the earlier Division Bench decisions in Dharmar vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in1995 (1) L.W.(Crl.) 333 and in Kanniappan vs. The District Magistrate and another, reported in 2000 (1) L.W.(Crl.) 196, quashed the order of detention holding that when the crime referred to in the adverse case is more grave in nature, there is no imminent possibility of the accused being released on bail and therefore the order of detention based on such opinion is vitiated on the ground of non application of mind. The principle laid down in the above decisions and its applicability to the instant case is not by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.