PANDIAMMAL Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Kasipuli, son of Chinnathambi, aged about 30 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Memo No. 1088/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 28.8.2014, 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) the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a "Goonda", in the Central Prison, Vellore, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith. Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non -supply of copy of the bail application filed in similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.

(2.) PER contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. However, he submitted that the copy of the bail application was not supplied to the detenu.

(3.) WE have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.