P VALLI W/O PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife of the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the order of detention dated 2.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, under Section 3(1) read with 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

(2.) The detenu came to the adverse notice of the police in four adverse cases. First adverse case relates to Chunambedu Police Station Cr. No. 517/1995 for an offence under Section 324 IPC, which is pending trial, second adverse case is Chunambedu Police Station Cr. No. 234/2001 for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC r/w. 149 IPC., third adverse case is Chunambedu Police Station Cr. No. 191/2003 for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 427, 307 IPC r/w. 3(1) TNPPD Act and the fourth adverse case is Chunambedu Police Station Cr. No. 257/2003 for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 326, 307, 302 IPC. The occurrence relating to ground case, on the basis of which the order of detention has been passed, allegedly took place on 27.8.2006. Ground case has been registered under Sections 147, 149, 307 IPC read with Sections 3 & 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The detenu was arrested on 20.10.2006. In the aforesaid background, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that detenu was a Goonda within the meaning of the Act and it was necessary to detain him to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detaining authority concluded:

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while assailing such order of preventive detention, has contended that the detaining authority has come to the conclusion that the detenu is likely to be released on bail without any cogent material and on the basis of mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority. It has been further submitted that the conclusion of the detaining authority that "I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application before Sessions Court or High Court since in similar cases bails are granted by the Sessions Courts or High Court." is the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority without any material on record and more particularly keeping in view the nature of allegations and the fact that investigation was still in progress and even there was no reasonable possibility of obtaining statutory bail contemplated under Section 167(2) proviso of Cr.P.C. as the period stipulated for completion of the investigation was far remote. In this connection, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention to several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the Full Bench and other Division Bench decisions of this Court in Rameshwar Shaw V. District Magistrate, Burdwan, 1964 CrLJ 257 Binod Singh V. District Magistrate, Dhanabad, 1986 CrLJ 1959 Rajesh Gulati V. Government Of Nct Of Delhi, 2002 CrLJ 4299 T.V. Saravanan Alias S.A.R. Prasanna Venkatachariar Chaturvedi V. State, Through Secretary and Anr.,2006 1 MadLJ(Crl) 539 A. Shanthi (Smt) V. Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors, 2006 9 SCC 711 and the Full Bench decision in K. Thirupathi V. District Magistrate And District Collector, Tiruchirapalli District at Tiruchirapali and Anr, 2005 4 CTC 497. and also the Division Bench decisions of this Court including the HCP. No. 1303 of 2006 disposed of on 27.6.2007, HCP. Nos. 46, 52, 74, 79 and 131 of 2007 date 19.6.2007.