GNANASEKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in C.O.C. No. 24/2014 dated 19.11.2014, whereby the detenu/brother of the petitioner herein, viz., Mani @ Subramaniyan, son of Natesa Nadar, aged about 55 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum -grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "BOOT -LEGGER".

(2.) AS per the grounds of detention dated 19.11.2014, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the 3rd adverse case [Cr.No. 225/2014] and also in the ground case in Cr.No. 494/2014 registered by Edaiyur Police Station and Muthupettai Police Station respectively. The detenu has already filed bail application in the ground case and the same was dismissed. He has not filed any further bail application in the ground case and he has also not moved any bail application in the third adverse case [Cr.No. 225/2014] as on the date of the passing of the detention order. He would also contend that the detaining authority has placed reliance on the statement of the sponsoring authority to the effect that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in those cases. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail in the ground case and in the 3rd adverse case and there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said cases. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non - application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the 3rd adverse case and in the ground case, is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] : 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER]; [b] : 2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] and [c] : 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH Vs STATE OF MANIPUR].