KALA Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner by name Kala, challenges the detention order dated 03. 07. 2006 passed by the second respondent herein, detaining her son Magesh as "goonda" under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 , in short "the Act" ).

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) AT the foremost learned counsel for the petitioner after taking us through necessary averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention submitted that in the absence of any material and subjective satisfaction as to the imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail, the detention order is not warranted and prayed for interference. We verified para 4 of the grounds of detention and verified that the detaining authority noted that the detenu was in remand in Crime No. 672 of 2006 of J-9 Duraipakkam Police Station and he moved a bail petition before Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Crl. M. P. No. 7215 of 2006 and the same is pending. After saying so and observing that he is likely to come out on bail in that case since in similar cases bail was granted by the same Court or higher Court, and taking note of his involvement in the adverse cases and his role in the ground case, the detaining authority passed the order of detention detaining the detenu. Inasmuch as the bail application of the detenu was admittedly pending before the Sessions Court, Chengaalpattu, it cannot be disputed that order would be passed at any moment. Though learned counsel commented that the words "very likely" cannot be equated with and are not similar to the expression, "imminent possibility", in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court (Madurai Bench) in the case of K. Thirupathi vs. District Magistrate and District Collector, Trichirappalli District and another reported in 2005 (2) Law Weekly (Crl.)946, we find no substance in the said contention and we are satisfied that the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, we reject the said contention.