IRUSAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE detenu Ezumalai S/o. Narayanasamy is a boot legger. THE petitioner is his wife and she has challenged the order of detention in Memo No.C2/15000/2008 dated 05-04-2008. It is seen from the grounds of detention that there were four adverse cases against the detenu. On 23-03-2008, a complaint was lodged and a case was registered in the Tirukovilur Prohibition Enforcement Wing Cr.No.498 of 2008 under Section 4(1)(aaa), 4(1)(i), 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937. This is the ground case. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarapuram and Judicial Magistrate, Tirukovilur (incharge) on 24-03-2008 and he was remanded to judicial custody till 04-04-2008 and the period of remand has been extended. THE detenu has also filed a bail application before the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.4080 of 2008 in Cr.No.498 of 2008.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when in Paragraph No.5 of the detention order the detaining authority has recorded that the detenu has filed a bail application and the same is pending it is rather surprising that the detaining authority had thereafter observed that the detenu "may come out on bail by filing a bail application before the same or higher court." THE learned counsel submitted that when the bail application is pending, the finding of the detaining authority that the detenu may file a bail application before the same or higher court clearly speaks of non-application of mind. To support his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced three orders in H.C.P.Nos.763 of 2006, 217 of 2008 and 69 of 2008. In all these matters a bail application was pending and the detaining authority had observed "I am also aware that it is very likely that he may come out on bail by filing a bail application before the Higher Court or the same Court" or words to the said effect and in all these cases this Court was pleased to quash the order of detention. THE learned counsel submitted that because of non-application of mind in the present case the detention order deserves to be quashed.

(3.) THE reason for detaining a person in these Acts is inter alia to safeguard the security of the State or maintain public order. This alone justifies executive detention without trial. When persons are detained on this ground the orders should be passed with extreme care and vigilance. But if orders are passed which beg to be quashed, then we may conclude that the authority is casual or careless. If so, even one hour of such detention is neither morally acceptable nor legally sustainable and may even justify the award of compensation. But routinely matters come up before us containing the same errors or defects. We will refer to some of them.(i) One of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is dated 16-10-2006 in H.C.P.No.763 of 2006 and Paragraph No.4 reads as follows: