R SAKTHIVEL Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. R. Subadra Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(2.) THE order of preventive detention is being challenged. THE detention is on the ground that the detenu is a goonda within the meaning of Section 3(1) of 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 the grounds of detention, reference has been made to two adverse cases viz., Annadanapatty Police Station Crime No.2103 of 2004 registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 I.P.C., wherein the offence was alleged to have committed on 05.09.2004 and Salem Town Police Station Crime No.1049 of 2006 registered under Sections 364-A, 386, 307 and 120-B I.P.C. wherein the offence was alleged to have committed on 12.06.2006. THEreafter, it is alleged that the detenu committed a further offence on 18.06.2006, on the basis of which, Salem Town Police Station registered a case in Crime No.1081 of 2006 under Sections 392 and 397 I.P.C. In paragraph 5 of the detention order, the detaining authority has recorded as under:- "I am aware that Thiru.Murali @ Muralitharan had been remanded to judicial custody in this case on 05.07.06 and that he is still in Central Prison, Salem as a remand prisoner. I am also aware that no bail application has been filed by him or on his behalf so far. But the real possibility of his filing a bail application in near future cannot also be ruled out. I am aware that if he applies for bail, there is a real possibility to be released on bail, because in similar cases bail is granted by the same court or the higher court after efflux of certain time. He had applied bail in previous case and obtained bail. If he is let out on bail and he is let to remain at large, he is very likely to indulge in such prejudicial activities in future as well. THErefore there is a compelling necessity to pass the order of detention with a view to preventing him from and indulging in such prejudicial activities in future." (emphasis added)