A. DIVYA Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Memo No. 1854/2014, dated 16.11.2014, whereby the detenu, the husband of the petitioner herein, namely, Arun @ Arunkumar, aged 27 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.) AS per the grounds of detention dated 16.11.2014, 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. 1155/2014 and in the adverse cases in Cr. Nos. 1144, 1153 and 1155 of 2014 registered by T -11 Thirunindravur, Police Station and the bail applications moved in the adverse cases and in the ground case in Crl. M.P. Nos. 4268, 4269 and 4270 of 2014 were dismissed by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, on 13.11.2014 and the detenu has not moved any further bail applications in those cases as on the date of the passing of the detention order. He would also contend that 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 further bail applications in those cases. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the detenu has not moved any bail applications in the adverse cases and in the ground case and he is in remand in the said cases. 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 as well as in the adverse cases and there is imminent 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 there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the adverse cases and 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], 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 v. The Commissioner of Police]; [c] : 2012 [7] SCC 181 [Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur] and [d] : 2008 [3] MLJ (Crl.) 144 [S. Andal v. District Magistrate and District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai and Another].