AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who was detained as ''Goonda'', as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
(Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned proceedings dated 24.01.2005, challenges the same in this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, at the foremost submitted
that in the absence of imminent possibility or likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, the decision of the Detaining Authority, detaining him
under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, cannot be sustained.
In the light of the above submission, we have perused the grounds of detention, particularly paragraph No. 5 (i) & (ii). Though the Detaining
Authority was having necessary knowledge about the fact that the detenu was in remand, after finding that his earlier bail applications were
dismissed, without necessary material, he has arrived at the conclusion that
...There is a possibility of him filing another bail application and being enlarged on bail....
The said conclusion is not in consonance with the dictum laid down in various decisions by the Supreme Court as well as this Court, vide
Kamarunnissa and Others Vs. Union of India and another, Rivadeneyta Ricardo Augustin v. Government of Delhi 1994 SCC (Cri) 354 & Order
of this Court dated 27.06.2005 made in HCP No. 284 of 2005. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.