The detaining authority must show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law, and the sacrosanct nature of personal liberty under Article 21.

S.TAMILVANAN, J.

Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in BCDFGISSV No.32/2015 dated 15.04.2015, whereby the petitioner/detenu herein, viz., Settu @ Sakthivel, son of Velayudham, Hindu, aged about 37 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of 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 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".

2. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.V.Perarasu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the ground case in Cr.No.136/2015 registered by Maraimalai Nagar Police Station and the bail application filed by him in the ground case before this Court in Crl.OP.No.9192/2015, was pending as on the date of the passing of the detention order. He would also contend that the detaining authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction by relying upon the similar case in which the accused were released on bail [a] by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in Cr.MP No.1493/2014 in connection with the case in Cr.No.344/2014 for the offence u/s.341, 294(b), 392, 307 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of the Maraimalai Nagar Police Station and [b] by this Court in Crl.OP.NO.96/2015 in connection with the case in Cr.No.811/2014 for the offence u/s.498(A), 307 IPC. The said accused is not the co-accused of the detenu. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case is pending. When a bail application is pending, there is no presumption that the detenu would be granted bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail in the ground case. The apprehension entertained in the mind of the detaining authority that there is a real possibility of detenu coming out on bail as the bail application in the ground case is pending is not justifiable for the reason that he has pre-judged the matter. Concedingly he could not foresee the nature of the order that would be passed by the Court. By the reason of pendency of the application, one could not easily come to the conclusion that the Court would certainly grant bail to the accused. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER] ; [b]2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] and [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR] .

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts and citation.

6. As could be seen from paragraph 5 of the Grounds of detention, the detenu is in remand in the ground case [Cr.No.136/2015] and the bail application filed by him in the ground case in Crl.OP.No.9192/2015 before this Court, was pend