RANJIT Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, the friend of the detenu, by name, Ravi @ Ravi Alex @ Alex Ravi, who was detained as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by the impugned order, dated 14.12.2005, challenges the same in this petition.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

(3.) At the foremost, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention, contended that though the detaining authority has very much relied on the bail application that was moved before this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 33739 of 2005, and the same was pending on the date of passing of the detention order, the copy of the same was not furnished to the detenu, which prevented him from making effective representation. A perusal of para 5 of the grounds of detention shows that the detaining authority, after taking note of the fact that the detenu was in remand in Central Prison, Cuddalore in Crime No. 914 of 2005 of Villupuram Town Police Station and has moved the bail application before the Sessions Court, Villupuram Sessions Division, Villupuram in Crl.M.P. No. 13038 of 20 05 and also considering the fact that the same was dismissed on 28.11 .2005 and after recording that he was aware that the bail application, namely, Crl.O.P. No. 33739 of 2005 moved before the High Court was pending, because of the same, there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, since in similar cases orders are granted by this Court after lapse of time, passed the impugned order of detention. The above reference makes it clear that the detaining authority has heavily relied upon the pendency of the bail application, viz., Crl.O.P. No. 33739 of 2005 filed before the High Court and after noting the same and satisfying himself that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by the orders of the High Court in the said application, passed the detention order.