Selvi vs The Secretary to Government, Food Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department, The District Collector and District Magistrate and The Secretary to the Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of India

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner who is the wife of the detenu by name Perumal, who was detained as a ""Black Marketer"" u/s 3(2)(a) read

with 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to para 8 of the grounds of detention (English version) submitted that

inasmuch as the detenu has not filed any bail application and on the date of the detention order he was in Central Prison, Trichy as a remand

prisoner, there is no imminent possibility of coming out on bail and this relevant aspect has not been considered by the detaining authority.

In order to appreciate the above said contention, it is useful to refer the relevant paragraph, which is as follows.

I am aware that Thiru Perumal had been remanded to judicial custody in this case on 18.01.2006 and that he is still Central Prison, Trichy as

remand prisoner. No bail application was filed so far. If he let out on bail and he is let to remain at large, he is very likely to continue in such

prejudicial activities in future as well. Therefore there is a compelling necessity to pass the order of detention with a view to preventing him from

indulging in such prejudicial activities in future.

It is clear that though the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in Central Prison, Trichy, however, after finding that he

has not filed any bail application so far, it is not clear how he arrived at a conclusion viz., that ""...If he let out on bail and he is let to remain at large,

he is very likely to continue in such prejudicial activities in future as well..."". The above conclusion would show the non- application of mind on the

part of the detaining authority, which according to us, vitiates the detention order. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty

forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.