BALAKRISHNAN Vs. DIST COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Radha-krishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondents.

(2.) THE order of preventive detention, dated 22/12/2004, passed by the first respondent, is being challenged by the brother of the detenu in this petition. The detention is on the allegation that the detenu is a Goonda.

(3.) THE question raised in this habeas corpus petition is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court (A. Thirumalvan v. Government of Tamil Nadu ). In paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has observed as follows 6. On verification, I found no truth in the allegation. He has not filed any bail application so far and there is a possibility of his filing a bail application and coming out on bail in future. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities in future as well which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order A mere perusal of the aforesaid portion does not reflect that the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there was imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail so as to indulge in any unlawful activity. In such view of the matter, the order of detention is vitiated by non application of mind.