KUMAR @ JEYAKUMAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE; INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.13/Goonda/2015 C1 dated 31.03.2015, whereby the petitioner/detenu viz. Kumar @ Jayakumar, S/o.Jayaveeran, aged about 39 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of 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".

(2.) Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mrs.A.Veeramarthini, 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, the detenu has been in remand in the ground case in Cr.No.14/2015 and in the 3rd and 4th adverse cases in Crime Nos.12 and 13/2015 respectively registered by Bungalowpudur Police Station for the offence under Section 379 IPC and that there is no mention as to whether the detenu has filed any bail application in the said cases as on the date of the passing of the detention order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Detaining Authority has also not specifically stated that there is a "REAL POSSIBILITY" or "IMMINENT POSSIBILITY" of the detenu coming out on bail in the said cases, if he filed any bail application in the said cases. He adds that absence of the said expression in the grounds of detention would vitiate the order of detention. When there is no mention about any bail application, then there is no presumption that the detenu would be granted bail. If that be so, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record. In the absence of such material on record, the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of the detention. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind. In support of his contention that the expression in explicit terms about the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail should be there in the order of detention and the absence would vitiate the order of detention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER, 2006 1 MadLJ(Cri) 539] ; [b] [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, 2005 1 CTC 577] and [c] [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR, 2012 7 SCC 181].