ARUNACHALAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to an order of the second respondent dated 13.01.2008 made in C4/D.O/1/2008, whereby an order of detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 was made against Senthil Kumar @ Senthi @ Kunjan, branding him as Goonda as defined under the provisions of that Act.

(2.) THE affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused along with the grounds of attack and also the order under challenge. THE Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents State.

(3.) ADDED further the learned counsel that there was an order of detention passed by the same Authority against the detenu and it was also the subject matter of habeas corpus petition before this court and this Court had an occasion to consider and to set aside the order. Now, all the 5 adverse cases, which were placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority, were taken into consideration and the Authority has passed the order of detention present. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1989 SCC (Cri) 367 (CHHAGAN BHAGWAN KAHAR VS. N.L.KALNA AND OTHERS) and 1989 SCC (Cri) 716 (RAMESH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS), the learned counsel would contend that the contention is fortified and hence so long as fresh materials were not placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority, the Detaining Authority should not have passed the order and hence it has got to be set aside. Thirdly, the detenu was arrested on 4.1.2008 and the order of detention came to be passed on 13.01.2008. In the meanwhile, no application for bail was filed by the detenu in Crime No.2 of 2008 before any court of criminal jurisdiction, but the Detaining Authority has pointed out that he was aware of the fact that no bail application was filed and even then, there was possibility of the detenu coming out on bail; that it is only a mere statement made without reasonable basis and that on that ground also, the order of detention has got to be quashed.