AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Rajesh, who was detained as a ""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 detention order dated 24.06.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
At the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, would submit
that in view of the fact that the petitioner has not moved any bail petition, there is no imminent possibility of his coming out on bail and this material
aspect has not been considered by the detaining authority. Hence, the detention order has to be quashed on the ground of non application of mind.
In the light of the said contention, we verified paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention. It makes it clear that the detaining authority was very well
aware that the detenu was in remand in R5 Virugambakkam Police Station Crime No. 783/2005. He also verified that the detenu has not moved
any bail application till the date of passing of the detention order. However, after taking note of his past records and after finding that by filing bail
application, there is every possibility for the detenu/petitioner to come out on bail, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
and after satisfying himself, the detaining authority has passed the impugned order of detention. In the light of the said particulars furnished in
paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, it cannot be claimed that the detaining authority has not applied his mind. On the other hand, there is no
dispute that if the detenu files bail application, on the orders of the Court, he will come out on bail at any movement. In such circumstances, we are
of the view that relevant aspects have been considered by the detaining authority and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner
cannot be sustained.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, by pointing out the document at page 17 of the booklet, submitted that the same is not readable since it is
not legible and because of the same, the detenu is not in a position to make an effective representation. We verified the relevant page viz., page
No. 17. The said page is readable and legible. We are unable to accept the said contention. Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out by the learned
Government Advocate, it is a copy of case diary related to the fifth adverse case and it is not a relied upon document. Hence, we reject the said
contention also.
Except the above contentions, no other grounds have been urged. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.