TR CHANDRU ALIAS CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. SECRETARY TO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to an order of the second respondent made in reference No.48/BDFGISSV/2008, dated 15.05.2008 whereby, Tr.Chandru @ Chandrasekaran, was ordered to be detained under the provisions 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 of 1982) (hereinafter referred as the Act) terming him as a 'Goonda' as defined under the provisions of the Act.

(2.) THE Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available in particular the order under challenge and also the grounds of attack.

(3.) ADVANCING his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions; Firstly, pursuant to the registration of the case in Cr.No.447/2008 for the offence under Sections 341, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC on 26.04.2008, which was shown as ground case, the petitioner was arrested on 27.04.2008. The order under challenge came to be passed on 15.05.2008. But, in the interregnum period no bail application was filed by the petitioner before any Court of criminal law. Though the detaining authority has pointed out in its order that he was aware that no bail application was filed in the cases and the petitioner was making efforts to file bail applications and hence there was a possibility of his coming out on bail by filing applications, this observation, which was not based on any materials whatsoever, was only an impression that was passing in the minds of the authority concerned. Under such circumstance, even without any material, he has taken a view that bail application could be filed and orders in his favour could be passed is only prejudging the matter. Added further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that immediately after the arrest, the said factum of arrest should be informed to one of the close relatives of the detenu. But, in the instant case, it is stated that the arrest of the detenu was brought to notice of his friend at Jaihindpuram, Madurai. However, no such friend of the detenu was residing in the said address. Moreover, the petitioner belongs to Alandur in Tirunelveli District. Thus, the arrest of the petitioner was not informed to a relative much less a close relative. Under such circumstance, the mandate of law of preventive detention was also violated and on those grounds the detention order has got to be set aside.