VIGNESWARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in H. C. P. No. 1109/2005, wife of one Mahali @ Mahalingam, who was detained as "goonda" under Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned detention order dated 20-9-2005, challenges the same in this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner in H. C. P. No. 1116/2005, wife of one Arumugam @ Kuttipuli arumugam, who was detained as "goonda" under Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 20-9-2005, challenges the same in this petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government advocate for respondents.

(3.) AT the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by drawing our attention to para 4 of the grounds of detention, would submit that even though the detenus have not moved any bail application in respect of ground case and the bail application namely Crl. M. P. No. 8033/2005 relates to first adverse case, namely, Crime Nos. 820/2005 and 1291/2004 respectively of E1 mylapore Police Station, in the absence of any material to show that the detenus are likely to be released, the detaining authority has committed an error in passing the impugned orders of detention. With reference to the said contention, we verified the averments made in para 4 of the grounds of detention. It is not in dispute that Crime Nos. 820/2005 and 1291/2004 of E1 mylapore Police Station relate to ground case based on which the impugned detention orders were passed. It is also not in dispute that the detenus have not moved bail application in respect of the said crime numbers. However, a reference has been made based on the bail applications filed in Crime nos. 820/2005 and 1291/2004 which pertain to first adverse case respectively as if tha t the detenus have moved bail applications before the Sessions Court, chennai in respect of the ground case and the same are pending. In the absence of bail application in respect of Crime Nos. 820/2005 and 1291/2004 of the said Police Station which are the ground cases, we are of the view that the detaining authority was not possessed with all the required materials before arriving at a conclusion that there is an "imminent possibility of the detenus coming out on bail". We are satisfied that the detaining authority was not possessed all the said particulars before taking a decision for detaining the detenus under Act 14 of 1982. On this ground, both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed; accordingly quashed. The Habeas Corpus petitions are allowed and the orders of detention are set aside and the detenus namely Mahali @ Mahalingam in H. C. P. No. 1109/2005 and Arumugam @ kuttipuli Arumugam in HC. P. No. 1116/2005 are directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless they are required in connection with any other case.