IMPORTANT POINT
In a preventive detention case when detenu is in jail in ground case, only requirement is that detaining authority should be aware that detenu is already in jail and is likely to be released on bail and such subjective satisfaction is not to be interfered with normally though such conclusion of authority can not be ipse-dixit of detaining authority.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982—Section 3(2)—Detention order on basis of ground case showing detenu involved in prostitution business and offences related to keeping a brothel, living on earnings of prostitution, procuring and detaining women in premises where prostitution was being carried—Order was challenged before High Court in Habeas Corpus writ on ground that representation dt. 25-9-2005 was not considered—High Court found that all the representations were placed before Advisory Board as well before Govt. and were duly considered and rejected and no new point was raised in representation dt. 25-9-2005 and detenu was in no way prejudiced—High Court also found no substance in plea that one of the ground cases being under NDPS Act, possibility of detenu coming out on bail was remote—Appeal—Whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule could be applied—Only requirement was that detaining authority should be aware that detenu was in custody and was likely to be released on bail—Normally subjective satisfaction of detaining authority is not to be interfered with though conclusion that detenu may be released on bail could not be ipse-dixit of detaining authority—Appellant did not dispute correctness of statement of respondent that in similar cases orders granting bail were passed by Courts—High Court was justified in rejecting the stand of appellant—Affidavit by respondent that no representation dt. 25-9-2005 was received—No ground to interfere.
Held : It has to be noted that whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied. The only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipse-dixit of the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with. On the facts of the case, the detaining authority has indicated as to why he was of the opinion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. It has been clearly stated that in similar cases orders granting bail are passed by various courts. Appellant has not disputed correctness of this statement. Strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellant on Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another [2002 (7) SCC 129]. The factual scenario in that case was entirely different. In fact, five bail applications filed had been already rejected. In that background this Court observed that it was not "normal" case. The High Court was justified in rejecting the stand of the appellant. [See: Ibrahim Nazeer v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (JT 2006 (6) SC 228) and Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N. and Another (2006 (5) SCC 676)].(Para 10)
Further the second respondent has filed an additional affidavit indicating that on verification of the registered post register for central zone, it has been noticed that no representation either from the detenu or on his behalf was received through registered post between 25.9.2005 and 30.9.2005. In view of the aforesaid, we find no substance in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.(Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by A. Geetha wife of Anandaraj @ Anand @ Anandan, (hereinafter referred to as the Detenu). The aforesaid detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short the Act). The order was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No. 175 of 2005 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of the Act and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). The allegation against the detenu was that on 5.9.2005 at about 17.15 hours the Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded on rounds to watch whether any prostitution activity was going on at Vadapalani, Arcot Road, Chennai City. When he was so proceeding near Avichi School, he noticed that the detenu was sitting in a red colour Maruti car and doing prostitution business. The detaining authority took note of three other adverse cases wherein the detenu was involved in prostitution business. Offences as noted above related to keeping a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution, procuring, inducing for the sake of prostitution detaining women in premises where prostitution is carrying on and doing prostitution in the vicinity of public place and abducting women for prostitution which were punishable under the Act and IPC. The investigation revealed that the detenu used to get young innocent poor girls, who because of poverty were in search of employment from State of Andhra Pradesh under the guise of getting employment and induced and forced them to indulge in prostitution business and took house a Porur, Chennai and kept the procured girls there and at times he took them to different places in Chennai city in cars and forced them into prostitution and earn huge money with the help of his associates. The investigation further disclosed that the detenu and his associates were doing such prostitution business at various places and were spoiling lives of young persons. Considering these activities to be prejudicial to maintenance of public order and being of the view that recourse to normal criminal law would not have desired effect in preventing him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, the detaining authority passed the impugned order. The detenu was declared as an immoral traffic offender and was kept in custody at the Central Prison, Chennai. The order of detention was assailed by filing a habeas corpus petition before the Madras High Court. One of the major plank of the appellants argument was that the representation dated 25.9.2005 received by the detaining authority on 26.9.2005 had not been considered though the Government approved the order of detention only on 2.10.2005. It was submitted that the said representation was neither placed before the Advisory Board nor the Government and therefore the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority is liable to be set aside. The State with reference to the records produced contended that all the six representation submitted by the detenu and/or his relatives were placed before the Advisory Board as well as the Government and all of them were duly considered. It was also stated that even the pre-detention representation dated 15.9.2005 was duly considered. The High Court verified the records and came to the conclusion that all the representatives were placed before the Advisory Board as well as before the Government, were duly considered and rejected. It was pointed out that no new point was urged in the representation dated 25.9.2005 copy of which was annexed, even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that such a representation was made and it was held th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 807

Cases Referred (3)