AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)
The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Viji, S/o.Muniyan, aged about 22 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 08.04.2026 bearing reference Memo No.219/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 branding him as "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].
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents.
Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition assailing the detention order, in the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument only with regard to non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction regarding imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail while passing the impugned order of detention.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in connection with the ground case and three adverse cases and the bail application filed by the detenu in respect of the ground case was dismissed and therefore, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the near future. However, the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order, arrived at the subjective satisfaction regarding imminent possibility of coming out on bail by relying on a bail order in Crl.O.P.No.24130 of 2024.
In this regard, the learned counsel drew the attention this Court to the order in Crl.M.P.No.24130 of 2024, which is enclosed at Page No.77 in Volume-II of the booklet. A perusal of the said order shows that the there was no previous case pending against the accused therein, whereas, there are eight previous cases pending against the detenu herein and therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority regarding the imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail shows clear non-application of mind. Therefore, the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged.
In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 08.04.2026 in Memo No.219/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 is hereby set aside and the detenu viz. Viji, S/o.Muniyan, aged about 22 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.