Krishna Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The detenu, viz., Krishna Singh, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 24.09.2004, detaining him as "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 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982").

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to para 4 of the grounds of detention, would submit that in the absence of imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on bauil by filing bail application, the decision arrived by the detaining authority for detaining him as ''goonda'' cannot be sustained. The following reference in para 4 is extracted hereunder;

"4. I am aware that Thiru Krishna Singh is in remand in F5 Chetpet Police Station Crime No. 792/2004 and he has not moved any bail application so far. I am also aware that there is possibility of his coming out on bail for the above case since in similar cases bails are granted by the Sessions Court and Higher Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order...."

It is clear that though the detenu is in remand, he has not moved any bail application so far. In such circumstance, unless the detaining authority possessed required materials to show that there is imminent possibility of his coming out on bail, merely on the ground of mere possibility of his coming out on bail, detention order cannot be clamped.

In this regard, it is useful to refer the earlier decision of us rendered in HCP.No.284 of 2005 dated 27.06.2005, wherein after considering similar observation / conclusion of the detaining authority and the decision of the Apex Court in Kamarunnissa and Others Vs. Union of India and another, and in Velumurugan @ Velu Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Another, , we have held that,

"In the absence of such an essential requirement, viz., ''such release was likely or that it was imminent'', it has to be held that the order of detention is vitiated.... "

In the light of the principles enunciated in the above referred decisions and in view of the statement made in para 4 of the grounds of detention, we are of the view that the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside, accordingly, set aside and this petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.