KUMARI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, wife of detenu, namely, Jayaseelan, son of Kuppusamy, aged 26 years, challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 14.11.2017 in Memo No.715/BCDFGISSSV/2017, detaining her husband as "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of dangerous activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).

(2.) As per the grounds of detention dated 14.11.2017, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: Adverse Case: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1060_LAWS(MAD)3_2018_1.html</FRM> Ground Case: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1060_LAWS(MAD)3_2018_2.html</FRM>

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the similar case relied on by the Detaining Authority relates to some other accused and the co-accused of the detenu. He would further submit that the Detaining Authority has satisfied himself as to the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the adverse cases as well as in the ground case as the detenu has filed any bail applications in the adverse cases and the bail petition filed by the detenu in the ground case was dismissed and no further bail application was filed by him. Further, it is contended that the detenu was arrested in the ground case on 21.09.2017; whereas the detention order came to be passed only on 14.11.2017, after a lapse of more than 1 1/2 months. This inordinate delay in passing of detention order would vitiate the same. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005 MLJ (Crl.) 752 (Ramesh v. District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli District and another). Hence, on the above grounds, the detention order is liable to be set aside.