VENKATASUBRAMANIAM @ VENKATESH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the detenu, namely, Venkatasubramaniam @ Venkatesh, aged 39 years, son of Venugopal, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in proceedings No.l 173/2014 dated 6.9.2014 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 -II, 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. M.N. Balakrishnan, 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 moved two Bail Applications in three of the adverse cases in F3 Nungambakkam Police Station in Crime No.1094 of 2014 and Crime No.1119 of 2014 and the same are pending. He would also contend that in the second Adverse case in Crime No.1 109 of 2014, the Detaining Authority has placed reliance on the statement of the Sponsoring Authority to the effect that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing Bail Application in the said case. However, when no Bail Application is filed in the Second Adverse case in Crime No.1 109 of 2014, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail and there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said cases. 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) T.V. Saravanan @ S.A.R. Prasanna Venkatachariar Chaturvedi v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary and another, 2006 (1) MLJ Crl. 539, (B) Velmurugan @ Veluv. The Commissioner of Police, 2005 (1) CTC 577; (C) Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur, 2012 (7) SCC 181; and (D) S. Andal v. District Magistrate & District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai and another 2008 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 144.