S SANGEETHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. O. S. Thilak Pasumbadiar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(2.) THIS is a glaring instance where Order of detention has been passed without application of mind and relevant materials had not been placed before the Detaining Authority. Order of detention is dated 15. 12. 2006, on the allegation that the detenu is a'goonda'within the meaning of Act 14/1982. It appears from the grounds of detention that there are two adverse cases against the detenu viz. , Cr. No. 1235/2006 and Cr. No. 445/2006. The ground case is registered as Cr. No. 506/2006. In para No. 4 of the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has recorded the fact that detenu is in remand in connection with Cr. No. 506/2006. It is further stated as follows:- ". . . . he has not moved any bail application so far. I am aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application before the Sessions Court of Higher Courts since in similar cases bail are granted by the Sessions Court or Higher Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public Order. " The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the above recitals in the grounds of detention clearly indicates that all the relevant facts have not been placed before the Detaining Authority. The learned counsel submitted that in fact in respect of Cr. No. 506/2006, a bail application was filed before the Sessions Judge on 04. 12. 2006, which was rejected by the sessions Judge on 04. 12. 2006. It further appears that the detenu had filed bail application before the High Court in connection with Cr. No. 506/2006, which was dismissed on 13. 12. 2006. It is submitted by learned Counsel that all these aspects were not placed before the Detaining Authority. The learned Counsel further submitted that if these matters would have been placed before the detaining Authority, one does not know whether the Detaining Authority would have come to the conclusion that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, inasmuch as bail had been rejected by the High Court. At any rate, this is a relevant circumstance which should have been placed before the Detaining Authority. A reading of the recitals in paragraph No. 4 clearly indicates the mechanical manner in which the so called satisfaction of the Detaining Authority has been reached on one vital aspect viz. , the imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail.