KARTHIKUMAR Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT FOOD CO OPERATION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT CHENNAI 600 009

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. C. Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(2.) THE order of preventive detention has been challenged by the son of the detenu. THE detention order was passed on 12. 11. 2006 on the ground that the detenu is a black marketeer within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (a) read with 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No. 7 of 1980 ).

(3.) ON going through the recital which has been extracted above, it is clear that the detaining authority simply concluded that the detenu is likely to be released on bail very soon without indicating on what basis he came to such conclusion. It has been held by the Full Bench of this court in a decision reported in 2005 (2) L. W. (Crl.) 946 (K. THIRUPTHI v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DISTRICT AND another) that while arriving at a particular conclusion relating to the possibility of the detenue being released on bail, the mere ipse dixit will not be sufficient and there should be some material in support of such conclusion. In the present case on hand, we are convinced that there is no materials for coming to the conclusion that the detenue was likely to be released on bail very soon and therefore, the order of detention is quashed.