(Order of the Court was made by P.MURGESEN, J) The petitioner is the detenu. He was detained by the second respondent District Collector by his order No.15/2008 dated 24.12.2008, under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a "Goonda".
2.The petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the grounds that the detaining authority has predetermined the detention order and there is no subjective satisfaction about the detenu coming out on bail.
3.Let us consider the two grounds. So far as the first ground is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in page No.141 of the booklet filed by the respondents the copy of remand extension report was sought for with a view to detain the petitioner under the Goonda Act, because the concerned police official has averred in that application that the accused will be detained under the Goonda Act and hence, the detaining authority has predetermined the detention order. the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police is not the detaining authority. So, the claim of the petitioner that already the detaining authority has predetermined the detention order is not helpful to the petitioner.
4.So far as the second submission is concerned, there are four adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case was registered in Crime Number 920 of 2008 under
Section 392 I.P.C. by the Allinagaram Police Station. He was arrested on 08.12.2008. On 24.12.2008, the detaining authority was of the view that the petitioner has not moved for any bail and he has averred that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, since in similar cases bails were granted by the concerned Courts after lapse of time. Absolutely there is no material to hold that the petitioner had intention to move for bail on the said date. The claim of possibility of the detenu coming out on bail has to be shown by some materials on record. On careful consideration of the materials on record, we are of the considered view that there is no material to come to the conclusion that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. So, testing the case in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, we are of the view that the detaining authority has failed to satisfy itself about the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.
5.On this ground alone, the detention order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 24.12.2008, passed by the second respondent in Detention Order No.15/2008 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, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector & and District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.