SAROJA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Habeas Corpus Petition is to the detention order dated 23. 12. 2006 whereby petitioner's son Krishnamoorthy @ krishnan was branded as "goonda" as contemplated under 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].

(2.) THE question for consideration is whether it is necessary for the Detaining Authority to take into consideration any bail application filed by the detenu and bail order passed by the criminal Court on the said application, as a matter of Rule to be placed before the Detaining authority and whether non-furnishing of copy of the said bail application and order to the detenu would vitiate the detention order.

(3.) IT is seen from paper book page no. 73 bail was granted as per the order in CMP No. 5104/2006. But page no. 73 does not reflect the Crime number. In the affidavit, though the Sponsoring Authority has stated about the grant of bail in Cr. No. 904/2006, copy of bail application does not seem to have been placed before the Detaining Authority on 21. 12. 2006. Detention order was clamped on the detenu on 23. 12. 2006. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that detenu was released on bail and was at liberty at the time of passing the order of detention and the Detaining Authority has to necessarily rely upon grant of bail. In such case, it is contended that bail application and the order granting bail should necessarily be placed before the authority and the copies should also be supplied to the detenu and non-supply of copy of bail application would vitiate the detention order.