IMPORTANT POINTS
Laws of Preventive Detention are to be strictly construed and the procedure meticulously complied with.
Not number of cases but impact of the act is the determinative factor for warrant of detention.
Neither appellant nor anybody on his behalf moving any court for bail is no ground for setting aside detention order.
Detaining authority’s conclusion that there is a real and imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail shows his satisfaction.
When detention order is quashed by High Court which in turn is found to be erroneous by Supreme Court, but detention period already expiring in the process; detenu cannot and shall not be taken into custody for serving the remaining period of detention, unless detaining authority still has materials to his satisfaction for putting him under detention. Matter should be remitted to the Detaining authority for taking decision in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT

M.Y. EQBAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. By way of present appeal by special leave, Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order-F) Department, Chennai has assailed the Order dated 26.4.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai Bench by which order of detention passed by the appellant under Section 3 (1)(a)of the National Security Act 1980 has been quashed.

3. The respondent-writ petitioner, being the wife of the detenu, by way of Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court, challenged the detention order mainly on the ground that the detenu was detained on the solitary ground case and the sponsoring authority has failed to place any material before the detaining authority to show that either the detenu himself or his relatives have taken any step to file bail application in a solitary ground case. The High Court held that the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that there is real or imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail is vitiated in law.

4. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the detention of the detenu on the solitary ground case cannot be held to be erroneous and even on solitary ground the detenu can be detained in custody if sufficient materials on record are available to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Shiv Ratan Makim vs. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 404, and Union of India & Anr. vs. Chhaya Ghosal & Anr., (2004) 10 SCC 97.

5. Mr. Rao then submitted that the High Court has not appreciated the law in holding that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that there is a real or imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and if he is released on bail, he would indulge in such activities which would be prejudicial to the security of the State. In this connection, learned senior counsel relied upon Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal and others, (1975) 3 SCC 198, Ahmad Nssar vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 473 and Baby Devassy Chully vs. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 531.

6. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel, lastly submitted that by reason of the detention order dated 5.12.2012 the detenu remained in jail till the order passed by the High Court dated 26.4.2013. On the question as to whether the detenu is required to undergo remaining period of detention, learned counsel fairly submitted that the matter is to be sent to the detaining authority to decide the same in accordance with law. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 409 and Chanddrakant Baddi vs. ADM & Police Commissioner & Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 290.

7. Mr. S. Gowthaman, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, at the very outset submitted that no bail application was filed on the date of passing of detention order although the respondent was confined in jail since 16.9.2012 and hence the detaining authority ought to have been satisfied while passing the order of detention that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi vs. State of Manipur and others, (2010) 9 SCC 618. Learned counsel also relied upon T.V. Sravanan alias A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi vs. State through Secretary and another, (2006) 2 SCC 664.

8. On the question of detention on solitary ground, learned counsel submitted that no criminal prosecution against the detenu is pending in any court of law except the instant case where the detenu was detained without any subjective satisfaction. There is no material against the detenu for the purpose of passing order of detention. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon the case of