The detention order can be quashed if there is a lack of imminent possibility of the detenu to come out on bail, and the detaining authority arrives at subjective satisfaction without sufficient material.

V. Dhanapalan, J.

1. The detenu is the petitioner and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 02.09.2013 made in No.869/BDFGISSV/2013, passed by the 2nd respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a ‘Goonda' and detained under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

2. As per the grounds of detention dated 02.09.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :-

Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law

1 T-1 Ambattur Police Station –

Cr.No.71 of 2013 324 and 506(ii) IPC @

326 and 506(ii) IPC

2 T-1 Ambattur Police Station –

Cr.No.78 of 2013 341 and 392 IPC

3 T-1 Ambattur Police Station –

Cr.No.1192 of 2013 341 and 392 IPC

4 T-1 Ambattur Police Station –

Cr.No.1287 of 2013 341, 294(b), 392 and 506(ii) IPC

5 V-7 Nolambur Police Station –

Cr.No.1408 of 2013 392 IPC

3. In para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated among other things that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 07.08.2013 at about 10.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Sub-Inspector of Police, L & O, V-7 Nolambur Police Station, in Crime No.1414 of 2013, for offences under Sections 341, 323, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on the same day and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, and remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied with the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition.

4. Amidst several grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly pleaded that there is no imminent possibility of the detenu to come out on bail when there is no bail application in respect of 5th adverse case and no material is also produced in support of anybody in taking steps to move the concerned Court for bail. Therefore, the imminent possibility is not available and the impugned order is vitiated in law.

5. We have heard Mr. P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents produced before us.

6. On a perusal of the impugned order of detention, it is seen that the petitioner has been detained as 'Goonda' as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and as against the detenu, the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority on the basis of 5th adverse case and one ground case and except 5th adverse case, in all other cases bail applications are moved and they are pending and in respect of the 5th adverse case, no steps had been taken for filing bail application. In the absence of any material, the detaining authority should not have arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu to come out on bail and therefore on this ground, the detention order is vitiated.

7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely Kumaresan, made Memo in No.869/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 02.09.2013, is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.