There should be prompt disposal of the representation filed by detenu.

(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the order of the second respondent in HS (M) Confdl.No.22/2004, dated 31.8.2004, and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Amali, now detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai as a Detenu, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.)

S. Ashok Kumar, J

The challenge in this habeas corpus petition is to the order of detention, dated 31.08.2004, passed by the second respondent against one Amali (hereinafter referred as "the detenu"), branding him as a "Goonda" and directing preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). The petitioner is the wife of the detenu.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on the following two grounds.

(i)When the crime referred to in the adverse case is more grave in nature, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail, as opined by the detaining authority, and, therefore, the order of detention based on such opinion, is vitiated for non application of mind and in support of this contention, he relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2004-2-L.W.(Crl.)681 (Ameer vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & another).

(ii)There is unexplained delay in disposing of the representation of the detenu and on this ground also the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.

4. We have also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above aspects and perused the materials placed before us.

5. It is seen that the order of detention came to be passed by the second respondent based on three adverse cases in Crime No.4 of 2004, registered on 06.01.2004, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 427, 435, 109 read with Section 34 I.P.C., in Crime No.267 of 2004, registered on 04.07.2004, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and in Crime No.305 of 2004, registered on 09.08.2004, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 302 I.P.C. The ground case is in Crime No.307 of 2004, registered on 10.08.2004, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and under Section 3(a) of Explosive Substances Act.

6.The detaining authority, after taking into consideration the adverse cases and particularly the ground case in Crime No.307 of 2004, wherein the major offence alleged is only under Section 307 I.P.C., was of the opinion that there is a possibility that the detenu could be released on bail as he has moved bail application in the ground case before the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi in Cr.M.P.No.1502 of 2004 which was posted for hearing on 01.09.2004. It is admitted that the detenu has not moved any bail application in the adverse case where the offence alleged to have been committed by the detenu is more grave in nature, namely, under Section 302 I.P.C. and in such circumstances, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail, as opined by the detaining authority.

7. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, while following the earlier Division Bench decisions in Dharmar vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in1995 (1) L.W.(Crl.) 333 and in Kanniappan vs. The District Magistrate and another, reported in 2000 (1) L.W.(Crl.) 196, quashed the order of detention holding that when the crime referred to in the adverse case is more grave in nature, there is no imminent possibility of the accused being release