J.SHIJO JOSE Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in C.No.13/G/IS/2015 dated 25.03.2015, whereby the petitioner by name J.Shijo Jose, S/o.Jose, aged 24 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, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "Goonda".

(2.) Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, 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.44/2015 registered by B -8 Variety Hall Road Police Station and the bail application filed by him in the said case before the learned District Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in CMP.No.639/2015 and the same was dismissed on 11.03.2015 and he has not filed any further bail petition in the ground case. He would also contend that the detaining authority has placed reliance on the statement of the sponsoring authority to the effect that the mother of the detenu taking steps to take him out on bail by filing further bail application in the ground case. Further, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is very likely of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case by filing further bail application, by relying upon the similar case registered by Coimbatore City, B -5, Singanallur Police Station Cr.No.1252/2012 u/s.395 r/w. 397 IPC, wherein bail was granted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.MP.No.77/2013. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, no further bail application has been filed by him in the ground case and he is in remand in the ground case. When no further 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 by filing further bail application. Concedingly he could not foresee the nature of the order that would be passed by the Court. 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 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] and [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR] .