VEERAMMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.19/Goonda/2015 C1 dated 12.05.2015, whereby the son of the petitioner, the detenu viz. Ravi alias Ravikumar, S/o.(Late) Raju, aged about 38 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, 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.129/2015 registered by Anthiyur Police Station and that there is no mention as to whether the detenu has filed any bail application in the ground case as on the date of the passing of the detention order. 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 ground case, if he filed any bail application in the ground case. 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. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu would likely to get bail in the ground case. 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] 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] .