R. Jayalakshmi vs State of Tamil Nadu

R. Banumathi, J.—The wife of the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the detention order dated 13.12.2006 passed

against her husband - V. Ravi, branding him as ""Goonda"" as contemplated u/s 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982.

In the Habeas Corpus Petition, though, several grounds have been raised and argued as well, we do not deem it necessary to consider every

one of them, for the Habeas Corpus Petition has to be allowed on the short ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority as to

the imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail is unsupported by any material.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case and as is evident from the record, there was

no imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail and yet the Detaining Authority, even in the absence of any material to raise an

apprehension that he may be released on bail in the near future passed the detention order.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents has submitted that there was sufficient materials placed before the Detaining

Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that there was a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail.

The detenu had earlier come to the adverse notice for allegedly committing assault, criminal intimidation and abuse, regarding which, cases were

registered in Cr. No. 483/2005 M.3 Puzhal P.S. for the offence u/s 323, 324 & 506(ii) IPC; Cr. No. 167/2006 M.3 Puzhal P.S. for the offence

u/s 147, 148, 324 & 506(ii) IPC; Cr. No. 424/2006 M.4 Redhills P.S. for the offence u/s 294(b) IPC and Cr. No. 678/2006 of M.3 Puzhal P.S.

for the offence u/s 384 & 506(ii) IPC

The detenu was an absconding accused in Cr. No. 678/2006. The ground case relates to an occurrence on 02.12.2006, wherein, the detenu is

alleged to have attempted on the life of the Police Personnel, who had gone to apprehend the detenu in connection with Cr. No. 678/2006. Insofar

as the occurrence on 02.12.2006 is concerned, a case was registered in Cr. No. 679/2006 for the offence u/s 341, 386, 332, 307, 336, 427 and

506(ii) IPC, which led to the passing of the detention order.

The principle, whether the order of detention was justified, even though the detenu was in custody on the date of issuance of the order of

detention is well settled in the cases reported in Kamarunnissa and Others Vs. Union of India and another, ; Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Vs.

Union of India and others, , N. Meera Rani Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another, and 1986 L.W. (Cri.) 221 (Suman v. State of Tamil

Nadu.).

Drawing our attention to the paper book, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the detenu was detained in

connection with both Cr.Nos. 678 and 679/2006, but whereas, the grounds of detention reflects the judicial custody of detenu only in Cr. No.

679/2006. Therefore, it was contended that there was no proper satisfaction as to the imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail,

which vitiates the impugned order of detention.

By perusal of paper book (Page No. 66), it is seen that the accused was remanded to judicial custody in both Cr.Nos. 678 and 679/2006 of

M.3. Puzhal P.S. The grounds of detention refers to only one crime number viz., Cr. No. 679/2006. There is no proper application of mind or

proper conclusion as to the imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail, which, in our view would vitiate the detention order.

It is well settled that the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is not the mere Ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority, but, has to be

supported by cogent material placed before the Detaining Authority (2006 (1) SCC (Cri.) 593 (T.V. Sravanan v. State) and (2006) 9 SCC 711

(A. Shanthi v. Government of Tamil Nadu). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, there was no cogent material

before the Detaining Authority, on the basis of which, the Detaining Authority could have satisfied as to the imminent possibility of the detenu being

released on bail. Applying the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court, in our view, the detention order cannot be sustained.

For the aforesaid reason, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 13.12.2006 is quashed and the detenu is

directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.