JALAL SHERIFF Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, cousin brother of one Raja @ Nainamalai @ Annamalai @ bullet Raja, who was detained as "goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982) under the impugned proceedings dated 25-10-2005, challenges the same.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondents.

(3.) AT the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the details in para 4 of the grounds of detention, contended that in the absence of pendency of any bail application, the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail is not based on any material and the said conclusion is liable to be interfered. In the light of the said contention, we verified para 4 of the grounds of detention. It is clear that the detaining authority was aware of the relevant fact that the detenu Raja @ Nainamalai @ Annamalai @ bullet Raja is in remand and he has not filed any bail application. It further shows that he has also taken note of the fact that till the passing of the detention order, the detenu has not moved any bail application. Since the detaining authority considered the relevant question relating to imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail, we are satisfied that there is merely because the detenu has not filed any bail application for grant of bail, it cannot be construed that it would not be possible for him to come out by filing bail application. As rightly pointed out, in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has specifically expressed his awareness of all the relevant facts including the fact that non-filing of the bail application and there is imminent possibility of coming out on bail by filing application for the same. It is not disputed that the detenu/accused can very well file an application. As rightly pointed out, as the information/details furnished in Tamil version are more clear, we are of the view that the detaining authority was justified in arriving at a conclusion that there is imminent possibility of coming out on bail and in that event, no detention order could be passed against him. In the light of the details furnished and the awareness shown, we are of the view that there is no substance in the argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner.