R RABIYA Vs. STATE; COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings C.No.10/G/IS/2015 dated 13.03.2015, whereby the husband of the petitioner, by name M.Rabideen @ Rafick, son of Mohammed Ismail, aged 42 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, 2080 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 2080) branding him as a "GOONDA".

(2.) Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.C.D.Sugumar, 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.11/2015 registered by Coimbatore City Crime Branch for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 506(ii) IPC and the bail application filed by the detenu in C.M.P.No.822 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore in C.M.P.No.822 of 2015 was dismissed on 07.03.2015. Thereafter, he has not moved any further bail application in the ground case as on the date of the passing of the detention order. Further, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is very likelyhood of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case by relying upon a similar case, viz., the case registered by Coimbatore City Crime Branch Cr.No.70/2014 u/s.120(b), 409 and 420 IPC wherein bail was granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore in Crl.MP.No.8295/2014 on 27.10.2014. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the detenu has not moved any further bail application in the ground case and he is in remand in the said case. When no bail application is filed, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. 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 there is imminent possibility of the detenu 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 there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail 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] , [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] ; [c] [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR, 2012 7 SCC 181] and [d] [S.ANDAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI AND ANOTHER, 2008 3 MadLJ(Cri) 144].