K BALASUBRAMANI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, grand mother of detenu-Rathinam, who was detained as Goonda in the impugned proceedings dated 5-9-2005 of the first respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goopnda, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982).

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

(3.) At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention and pointing out that inasmuch as the detenu has not moved any bail application till the date of passing of the detention order, the awareness of the detaining authority that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is not supported by material, accordingly the ultimate detention order is liable to be quashed. With reference to the said contention, we verified para 4 of the grounds of detention. It is seen that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu Rathinam in remand in G3 Police Station Crime No. 797/2005 and also noted that he has not moved any bail application till the date of passing of the detention order. However, after finding that by filing bail application before the Sessions Court or the higher Courts, it would be possible for him to come out and taking note of his past activities and after finding that he will come out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the impugned detention order. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.