CHELLADURAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order of detention dated 17.2.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City made in Proceedings C.P.O./T.C./I.S./D.O.No.10/2009 in detaining him as a 'Goonda' under the 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.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, there was no material before the detaining authority to come to a conclusion that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application in the case.

(3.) WE heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the case of Senthamilselvi v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, (2006) 3 SCC (Crl) 50, a similar question fell for consideration as to whether the detaining authority would have inferred that there was a possibility of the detenu being released on bail even in the absence of bail application filed by the detenu. In the said case, the Supreme Court observed that whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends upon the circumstances of each case and no hard-and-fast rule can be applied, held, "the only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipse dixit of the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail. That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with." Similar was the observation of the Supreme Court in the decision in A. Geetha v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, (2006) 3 SCC (Crl) 324.