AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Challenge is to the order of detention dated 25.11.2004 terming one Palani as a goonda, u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers
Act, 1982, by the petitioner herein, who is nonetheless the brother of the detenu.
On 4.11.2004 at about 12.30 hours one S. Sekar lodged a complaint to the effect that on 4.11.2004 morning at about 11.30 hours he was
coming in his auto bearing No. TN.09.B-0129 through RP Road, opposite to Iyappa Tea Stall. His auto was signaled to stop by a person, the
detenu herein, and asked him whether the auto would come to Tambaram. Meanwhile the detenu took out a knife stabbed on the Sekar''s stomach
and took out Rs. 60/- from his shirt pocket. Due to this, traffic jam took place there for a while. Immediately, the detenu rotated his arm along with
the knife. On seeing the incident, the public ran hither and thither. A case was registered in Crime No. 381/2004 under Sections 341, 392, 397
and 506(ii) IPC on the file of the Chitlapakkam Police Station. On the basis of the above ground case and nine adverse cases of alike nature, the
detaining authority has passed the impugned order of detention.
The impugned order of detention is under attack by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground of non application of mind on the part of
the detaining authority while passing the order of detention, wherein he had stated in the grounds of detention that there is an imminent possibility of
the detenu coming out on bail, when the fact remains that the detenu had not preferred any bail application.
Every citizen in this country has the right to have recourse to law. He has the right to move the court for bail when he is arrested under the
ordinary law of the land. If the State thinks that he does not deserve bail the State could oppose the grant of bail. He cannot, however, be
interdicted from moving the court for bail by clamping an order of detention. The possibility of the court granting bail may not be sufficient. Nor a
bald statement that the person would repeat his criminal activities would be enough. There must also be credible information or cogent reasons
apparent on the record that the detenu, if enlarged on bail, would act prejudicially to the interest of public order, vide Shashi Aggarwal Vs. State of
U.P. and Others, .
""Imminent possibility"" is relevant to the present circumstances and not relating to the future. The detaining authority has passed the impugned
order of detention stating that there is an imminent possibility of coming out on bail, without any basis for such a possibility to occur in future,
particularly, when the detenu has not resorted to file any bail application, which would reflect the non application of mind of the detaining authority
to the actual situation of the case. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and accordingly, the same is quashed. The detenu Ramar
is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.
The Habeas Corpus petition is allowed.