K. Subramanian vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S. Jagadeesan, J.—The detenu was arrested on 8.3.2001 for the offences under Sections 4(1)(i) and 4(1A)(ii) of Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and Section 328 I.P.C. and a case was registered in Crime No. 120/2001 in Veppankuppam Police Station, Vellore District. Subsequently an order of detention was passed on 1.5.2001 under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Petitioner has filed the petition challenging the same for his friend.

Since the learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised only one technical ground, we are of the view that there is no need to traverse the fact in detail. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned order of detention did not contain the compelling reason for passing the detention order as the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind to the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The paragraph 5 of the impugned order only specify the possibility of filing the bail application and the possibility of filing of the bail application cannot be equated to the possibility of coming out on bail. She also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishnu Nagnath Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2000 (4) Crimes 272 (S.C.).

We carefully considered the above contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Paragraph 5 of the detention order where the Detaining Authority has dealt with the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, is as follows:

I am aware that Thiru Sankar is in remand for the offence u/s 4(1)(i), 4(1-A) (ii) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and 328 IPC and he has not filed any bail application in the Court so far. But there is the likelihood for coming out on bail if he files any bail application in the Court. I am also aware that in similar cases, accused are enlarged on bail by the Court after lapse of some time, and if he comes out on bail he would indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health.

From the above extracted portion, it is very clear that the Detaining Authority is aware that the detenu has not filed any bail application so far. But, however, there is likelihood the detenue coming out on bail if he files any bail application in the Court as in similar cases the accused are enlarged on bail by the Court after lapse of some time. Hence the impugned order of the detention clearly reveals the mind of the Detaining Authority that he is aware that the detenu will come out in case if he moves for bail. Hence the Detaining Authority has satisfied that in case if the detenue moves the bail application in the normal course, he will be released on bail and as such there is possibility of the detenue coming out on bail. Hence the order of detention is necessary. In view of the above statement of fact, we are not able to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Further the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has no relevance because in the said judgment the words that "the detenu likely to be released on bail" are totally missing. It is clear from the paragraph 6 of the said judgment which is as follows:

The requirement as noticed above in Binod Singh''s case (supra) that there is ''likelihood of the Petitioners being released on bail that however is not available in the reasonings as provided by the concerned officer. The reasoning available is the ''likelihood of his moving an application for bail'' which is different from ''likelihood to be released on bail''. This reasoning, in our view is not sufficient compliance with the requirements as laid down.

Hence the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is of no help for her. Except this sole ground, no other grounds are urged.

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the Habeas Corpus Petition. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.