KARUPAYEE Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HABEAS corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in Detention Order No.1/2009 dated 4.2.2009 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu namely Illangovan, son of Otchathevar, aged about 29 years detained at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.)S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.The mother of the detenu has filed this petition against the detention order passed by the second respondent in Detention Order No.1/2009 dated 4.2.2009, whereby the detenu Illangovan has been branded as Goonda and detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

(2.) THE main plea taken by the petitioner, is that there was no application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the words and expressions "imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail" or "likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail" or "release on bail was likely" or "release on bail in the immediate future" or "release on bail at the earliest" indicating that the release would likely to happen very soon, have not been mentioned.

(3.) THE question whether the usage of the word "imminent" is necessary or the other convincing expressions can be used by the detaining authority fell for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of K.Thirupathi (supra) 2005 MLJ (CRL.) 1101. In the said case, the Full Bench has observed as follows: