VANAMAYIL Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the mother of the detenu by name Vadivelu @ Sirkazhi Vadivelu. She challenges the detention order dated 25. 01. 2005 detaining her son as a goonda under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 ).

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, would contend that inasmuch as charge sheet was filed even on 24. 01. 2005, the detention order having been passed only on 25. 01. 2005, there is no imminent possibility of detenu being coming out on bail and this aspect was not considered by the detaining authority.

(3.) IN the light of the said contention, we have carefully perused the materials, namely, paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention. It is seen that the detaining authority, after verifying the records and knowing the fact that the remand was extended upto 01. 02. 2005, arrived at the conclusion that there is an imminent possibility that he may come out on bail for the offences under sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 302 IPC and also under sections 353, 286 and 506 (ii) IPC by filing bail application before the Court. The detaining authority was also aware of the fact that in similar cases, accused are being enlarged on bail by the same Court or Superior Courts after lapse of some time. In our case, inasmuch as charge sheet had been filed even on 24. 01. 2005, as rightly pointed by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the imminent possibility exists since by filing bail application, it would be possible for the detenu to come out on bail at any time. These material aspects have been considered by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention. We are unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.