M.SARANYA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Habeas Corpus Petition is directed against the Detention Order passed by second respondent in Detention Order in No.4/BCDFGISSSV/2019, dated 4.4.2019

(2.) The Sponsoring Authority had recommended for the detention of the Petitioner's husband under Act 14 of 1982 based on two adverse cases and one ground case and that a case was registered against the Petitioner's husband and the Petitioner's husband was thereafter arrested in the said case. The Detaining Authority has branded the detenu as a ''GOONDA'' and has passed the Detention order, dated 4.4.2019.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Detention Order was passed based on two adverse cases and one ground case. The Detaining Authority has taken into consideration the bail petition that has been filed and pending in the second adverse case in Cr.No.50 of 2019 and in the ground While arriving at the subjective satisfaction, the Detaining Authority has taken into account the two orders passed in two different bail petitions for some other accused persons. The first order that has been taken into consideration is in Cr.No.156 of 2015 for the offence under Section 353 IPC and 25(1) (A) of the Arms Act . This order was passed in the year 2015. Similarly, the second order that has been taken into consideration was passed in Cr.No.275 of 2018 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) ii(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985.. In this case bail was granted in the year 2018. Both these orders which have been referred to are not similar to the second adverse case that has been registered against the detenue in Cr.No.80 of 2019. Therefore, referring to these two orders as a ground for the subjective satisfaction, reflects the non-application of mind. Similarly, these two orders will not have any bearing insofar as the ground case also, since it is an offence under Section 307 of IPC. This again reflects the non-application of mind. The learned counsel further submitted that the subjective satisfaction that has been arrived at is without any materials and therefore, the Detention Order is vitiated.