(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J) Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent in Crl.M.P.No.44 of 2008, dated 16.09.2008, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be detained 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 Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge.
3. It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in three adverse cases, which are as follows:-
Sl Name of the Police station and Crime No. Section of law No.
Apart from that, the detenu was involved in one ground case in Crime No.155/2008 under
Sections 341,294(b) and
392 IPC registered in Uppiliapuram Police Station. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in three adverse cases and one ground case, after scrutiny of the materials available, the detaining authority recorded his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that he should be detained as a "Goonda" and accordingly, made the order of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his sincere attempt of assailing the order brought to the notice of the Court that while no bail application was filed in the ground case in Crime No.155/2008, the detaining authority, had made an observation in his order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, without any basis or material whatsoever. Mere apprehension in the mind of the authority is not sufficient, it must be supported by materials.
5.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
6.After looking into the materials available, the Court has to necessarily agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in three adverse cases and one ground case that took place on 21.08.2008 and he was arrested on the same day. At the time of passing the order under challenge, no bail application was filed or was pending before any Court of criminal law in the ground case but the detaining authority in his order observed that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. It was only an apprehension in the mind of the detaining authority without any material or basis whatsoever. Thus, it would certainly affect the order of detention.
8.On the above ground, the order of detention has got to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
sj/asvm To
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector, Thiruchirapalli District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichirapalli District.
4.The Secretary, Advisory Board, Coovam House, Swamy Sivanandha Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.