(Order of the Court was made by P.MURGESEN, J) Challenging the order of the detention, the wife of the detenu has filed the petition. The detenu was detained by the second respondent Commissioner of Police by his detention order No.07/2009 dated 28.03.2009, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) terming him as a "Goonda".
2. The detenu was involved in three adverse cases, which are as follows:-
Apart from that, the detenu was involved in one ground case in Crime No.68/2009 under
Sections 336,397 and
506(ii) IPC registered in Dindigul Town North Police Station for the incident that took place on 29.01.2009.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent is vitiated on two grounds. The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority's satisfaction about the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is not established. It is settled law that there must be some material to hold that there is possibility of the detenu coming on bail. In the detention order the detaining authority has averred that "Accused T.Chinnakaruppu @ Chinnakaruppan filed bail petition Cr.M.P.No.588/99 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Palani and it was dismissed on 18.02.2009. However, there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing a bail application before the same or higher courts. Also in similar cases, this Court or higher Courts may enlarge the accused on bail after lapse of some time."
In this case bail application was dismissed on 18.02.2009 and the detention order was clamped on 27.03.2009. There must be satisfactory and acceptable materials on record to enable the detaining authority to arrive at the conclusion that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing another bail application. We perused the materials carefully and meticulously and the respondent is unable to say any ground or material to show that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is based on any material. Absolutely, there is no material to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. So, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is not correct. Hence, the order of detention is liable to be set aside on this ground.
4. The second ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is delay in considering the representation. In the proforma filed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is stated as follows:
1. Category : GOONDA 2. Name of the detenu : Thiru.T.Chinnakaruppu @ Chinnakaruppan S/o.Thiru.Thannasi 3. Order of Detention and date : 07/2009, dated 28./03/2009 4. District : Dindigul District. 5.Representation dated : 23.05.2009
6.Representation received dated : 09.06.2009
7.Remarks called on dated : 10.06.2009
8.Reminder dated : --
9.Remarks received on dated : 15.06.2009
10.File Submitted on dated : 16.06.2009
11.Under Secretary dealt with on : 16.06.2009
12.Addl. Secretary dealt with on : 16.06.2009
13.Minister for (PWD & Law) dealt with on : 17.06.2009
14.Rejection letter prepared on : 23.06.2009
15.Rejection letter send to the detenu : 24.06.2009
16.Rejection letter served to the detenu on : 29.06.2009 It is seen that the Minister for Public Works and Law dealt with the representation on 17.06.2009, the rejection letter was prepared on 23.06.2009 and the rejection letter was prepared on 24.06.2009. Though 20.06.2009 and 21.06.2009 are holidays, the rejection letter was prepared on 23.06.2009, after a delay of three days. Hence, there is an unexplainable delay of three days. It vitiates the order of detention. Hence, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.
6.Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.07/2009 dated 28.03.2009, passed by the second respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
sj To
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Secretary, Advisory Board, 32, Rajaji Salai, Singaraveler Maligai, Chennai Collectorate, Chennai.