PECHIAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Vidyadharan @ Karthik, aged 25 years, son of Dharmaraj to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in Memo No.1058/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 25.8.2014 passed by the second 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 of 1982), branding him as a "Goonda ", in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.

(2.) THOUGH several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.C.V.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non -application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the ground case in Anti Vice Squad, Chennai, in Crime No.83 of 2014, the detenu has moved a bail application in C.M.P.No.4813 of 2014, on the file of the 4th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, and the said bail application was dismissed. Another bail application filed in C.M.P.No.4897 of 2014 is still pending before the 4th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. He would also submit that the detaining authority has referred the similar case in Anti Vice Squad, Chennai, in Crime No.15 of 2014, wherein bail was granted by the 4th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.749 of 2014. However, bail granted in the similar case in Crime No.15 of 2014, was not based on merit but only on medical ground. Therefore, no cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to apprehend that the detenu is likely coming out on bail in the said case. 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 it is very likely of the detenu coming out on bail 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] ; [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR] and [d] 2008 [3] MLJ (Crl.) 144 [S.ANDAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI AND ANOTHER].