The court emphasized the importance of timely detention orders and the need to consider all relevant factors, including bail orders, in making such decisions.

(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J)

1. This petition is brought forth by the wife of the detenu challenging the order of the second respondent in Memo No.498/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 3.9.2010, whereby her husband Ramesh was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982.

2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.

3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in one adverse case viz. (i) Crime No.21 of 2009 registered by J-9 Thuraipakkam Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.466 of 2010 registered by J-8 Neelankarai police station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 332, 307, 427 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 23.6.2010 and the detenu was arrested on the very day, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. While advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that the detenu was arrested in the ground case on 23.6.2010 and the detention order came to be passed on 3.9.2010. Thus, there was a delay of more than two months in passing the detention order. This would vitiate the detention order.

5. Learned counsel added further that in the ground case in Crime No.466 of 2010, the detenu was arrested on 23.6.2010 along with other accused and they were sent for judicial remand. The detenu filed a bail application before the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P. No.2419 of 2010 and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a bail petition before this Court in Crl.O.P. No.18655 of 2010 and the same was also dismissed. The co-accused has been granted bail on 2.9.2010. While the matter stood thus, the detention order came to be passed on 3.9.2010. It is pertinent to point out that the order copy in respect of bail granted to the co-accused was obtained from the Court only on 2.9.2010 and the same was placed along with the detention order, which was passed on 3.9.2010. Hence, it is quite clear that the Detaining Authority could not have perused the copy of the bail order granted in favour of the co-accused which was issued on 3.9.2010 and passed the detention order. The copy of the bail order should have been placed after passing of the detention order, which would vitiate the detention order. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside.

6. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.

7. As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to one adverse case and one ground case as referred to above, and has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

8. It is not in controversy that the detenu was arrested in the ground case on 23.6.2010 and the detention order came to be passed on 3.9.2010. Thus, there was a delay of more than two months in passing the detention order. This would vitiate the detention order.

9. Added further, in the ground case in Crime No.466 of 2010, the detenu was arrested on 23.6.2010 along with other accused and they were sent for judicial remand. The detenu filed a bail application before the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P. No.2419 of 2010 and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a bail