(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J) Challenge is made to an order of the first respondent in M.H.S.Confl.No.112/2008 dated 21.07.2008 whereby husband of 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 four adverse cases, which are as follows:-
Sl Name of the Police station and Crime No. Section of law No.
1 Chinnakovilangulam P.S. 294(b) and 307 IPC Crime No.11/2006 2 Sankarankovil Town P.S. 147, 148, 307 IPC and Section 3 of Tamilnadu Property Crime No.355/2007 Prevention of damage and loss Act r/w
Sections 3,5 of Explosive Substances Act.
3 Sankarankovil Taluk P.S. 147, 148, 294(b) and
307 IPC Crime No.80/2007 4 Sankarankovil Town P.S. 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and
307 IPC Crime No.357/2007 Apart from that, the detenu was involved in one ground case in Crime No.57/2008 under
Section 341,387,307 and
506(ii) IPC registered in Chinnakovilangulam Police Station. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in four 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.The only ground on which the order under challenge is sought to be set aside is that while there was no bail application either filed or was pending before any Court of criminal law in the ground case. But, the detaining authority, had made an observation in his order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The detaining authority has stated thus in view of the mere apprehension, without any basis or material whatsoever. Mere apprehension in the mind of the authority is not sufficient, it must be based on the acceptable 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 four adverse cases and one ground case that took place on 15.07.2008 and he was arrested on 16.07.2008. At the time of passing the order under challenge, no bail application was filed or was pending before any Court of criminal law 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. Mere apprehension would not be sufficient. To pass such an order, there must be materials available for the authority. But, in the instant case, no material was available for the detaining authority. Hence, the order of detention has got to be set aside.
8. 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 District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.