SUBATHARA Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, viz., Senthil alias Senthilkumar, S/o. Vaiyapuri, aged about 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D. No. 44/2015, dated 14.08.2015, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Sec. 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note of the ground case in Crime No. 188 of 2015 on the file of Thirukkattuppalli Police Station registered for alleged offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the adverse case in Crime No. 296 of 2012 on the file of Thirukkattuppalli Police Station registered for alleged offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 506(ii), 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with 3(1) of PPDL Act altered into 147, 148 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfaction that the detenu conformed to the definition of the "Goonda" and that his presence at large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and also expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that the detenu would come out on bail in the ground case, passed the impugned detention order. The said order is challenged in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

(3.) Though the order of detention is assailed on several grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the contention that the bail applications filed in the ground case were dismissed and no further bail application was filed, but still the detaining authority expressed subjective satisfaction that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case relying on the bail order passed in another case and that the same will be termed ipse dixit not supported by cogent materials.