The detaining authority must apply its mind in considering the possibility of the detenu being released on bail, and the failure to supply the copy of the remand order to the detenu can vitiate the order of detention.

(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus by calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent made in Detention Order No.04/2004, dated 15.10.2004, quash the same and set the petitioner at liberty from Central Prison, Madurai.)

The order of preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982 has been challenged by the detenu himself. The order of detention, dated 15.10.2004, is on the allegation that the detenu is a "Goonda" as defined in Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982.

2. In the grounds of detention, reference has been made to several adverse cases, including Rayappanpatty Police Station Crime No.346 of 2004 registered under Sections 147, 148, 109, 114 and 302 I.P.C. The ground case, on the basis of which the order of detention has been passed, is registered as Rayappanpatty Police Station Crime No.347 of 2004 under Sections 382, 506(ii) (in the grounds of detention indicated as 546(ii)) and 379 I.P.C. In paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention, a reference has been made to the fact that the detenu surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul, on 15.09.2004 in connection with Crime No.346 of 2004 of Rayappanpatty Police Station and thereafter the detenu was kept under police custody on 23.09.2004 and subsequently produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 24.09.2004. In paragraph 9 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu has been remanded to judicial custody upto 22.10.2004. It has been further recited "...... However, there is an imminent possibility of moving bail and coming out on bail. I am also aware that bails are granted by the same Court or the Higher Courts in the cases of this nature after efflux of certain time. If he is let to remain at large, he is likely to indulge in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order......"

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon several earlier decisions of this Court, has contended that the aforesaid conclusion of the detaining authority regarding the possibility of the detenu being released on bail is mechanically recorded without any application of mind. It has been submitted by him, in our opinion rightly, that the recital to the effect that bails are granted by the same Court or higher Courts in the cases of this nature refers to the ground case which has been registered on the allegation that offences under Sections 382, 506(ii) and 379 IPC had been committed. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State also submitted that the aforesaid reference relates to the ground case. At any rate, it is not clear whether the reference is to the alleged offence committed in the ground case or the alleged offence committed in Rayappanpatty Police Station Crime No.346 of 2004.

4. In the aforesaid context, the counsel for the petitioner has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in 1995-1-L.W.(Crl)333 - (Dharmar vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another). In the said case, the detenu was allegedly involved in commission of a serious crime like 302 IPC in the adverse case and subsequently was allegedly involved in offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 427 and 506(ii) IPC and the detaining authority had recorded his satisfaction about the imminent possibility of such accused person coming out on bail for the offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 427 and 506(ii) IPC by filing bail application. Further, no reference was at all made to the fact that the very same accused was also involved in a more serious offence for which bail was yet to be granted and without considering these aspects, the conclusion had been recorded in the grounds of detention. The Division Bench thereafter concluded:

"9. In such state of affairs, we are of the opinion t