R. PARTHASARATHY Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT STATE OF TAMIL NADU, HOME, PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in C.No. 33/G/IS/2014 dated 08.09.2014, whereby the detenu/the petitioner herein, 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.) AS per the grounds of detention dated 08.09.2014, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the ground case in Cr.No. 565/2014 registered by Coimbatore City B9 Saravanampatty Police Station and the bail application filed by the detenu before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in Crl.MP.No. 2739/2014 was pending 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 likely of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case by relying upon the similar case registered by Coimbatore City B5 Singanallur Police Station Cr.No. 675/2012 for offence u/s.392 r/w 397 IPC wherein bail was granted to the accused N.Prabhu @ Prabhakaran by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in Crl.MP.No. 2907/2012. The said similar case is not that of the co -accused of the detenu. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case was pending and he is in remand in the said case. When a bail application is pending, there is no presumption that he would come 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 no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case. The apprehension entertained in the mind of the detaining authority that there is a real possibility of detenu coming out on bail as the bail application in the ground case are pending is not justifiable for the reason that he has pre - judged the matter. Concedingly he could not foresee the nature of the order that would be passed by the Court. By the reason of pendency of the application, one could not easily come to the conclusion that the Court would certainly grant bail to the accused. 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 is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in the said 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], 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 Assan AliyarPUR] and [d], 2008 [3] MLJ (Crl.) 144 [S.ANDAL Vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI AND ANOTHER].