LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-701

KEMBARAJ Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPARTMENT; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE; INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Decided On March 25, 2015
Kembaraj Appellant
V/S
Secretary To Government, Home, Prohibition And Excise Department; District Collector And District Magistrate; Inspector Of Police Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the detenu, namely, Kembaraj, aged 23 years, Son of Nagaraj, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in S.C.No.36/2014 dated 08.08.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) 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 14/1982), branding him as a "Goonda", in the Central Prison, Salem, to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.

(2.) Mr.R.S.Vaideeswaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned detention order on two main grounds, viz. (i) non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and (ii) non-supply of copy of the bail application in similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, which would vitiate the impugned detention order.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.C.Emalias, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention and that the detaining authority has observed that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and if he comes out on bail, he would indulge in such activities in future, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and there is a compelling necessity to detain him under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and as such, the detaining authority has rightly passed the detention order. However, he admitted that the copy of bail application in similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.