The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in preventive detention cases must be based on reliable and dated evidence to justify the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of detention dated 05.07.2022 vide Memo No.66/BCDFGISSSV/2022 passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to set forth the detenu Manikandan @ Kullamani, aged 31 years now confined in Central Prison-II, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty)

M. Sundar, J.

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' (''HCP'' for the sake of brevity) has been filed by wife of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 05.07.2022 bearing reference Memo No.66/BCDFGISSSV/2022'' (hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience). To be noted, fourth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.

2. Impugned detention order has been made under ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sandoffenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982. 3. There is one adverse case and one ground case. The ground case which is the substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.125/2022 on the file of E-4 Kattur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of ''Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)'' [''IPC'' for brevity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr.V.Parthiban, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John for all four respondents are before us.

5. Notwithstanding very many averments in the support affidavit, Mr.V.Parthiban, learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail is impaired as there is no material to substantiate the same. To be noted, relevant portions of the impugned detention order in this regard reads as follows:

''I am aware that Thiru.Manikandan is in remand in E-4 Kattur Police Station Crime No.125/2022. He has not moved any bail application for E-4 Kattur Police Station Crime No.125/2022 case. The sponsoring authority has stated that it is learnt that the relatives of Thiru.Manikandan are taking steps to take him on bail in E-4 Kattur Police Station Crime No.125/2022 case by filing bail application before the appropriate Court. Further, in a similar case, registered at R-3 Ashok Nagar P.S. Cr.No.59/2021, u/s.147, 148, 449, 324 and 302 I.P.C., bail was granted to the accused Thiru.Balaji by the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.10485/2021. Hence, I infer there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail in E-4 Kattur Police Station Crime No.125/2022 case by filing bail application before the appropriate Court, since in a similar case, the bail was granted by the Court after a lapse of time.''

Learned counsel submitted that there are two parts to the subjective satisfaction. One is regarding steps being taken by relatives and the other part is bail being granted in another what according to the detaining authority is similar case. As regards the first part, learned counsel adverting to pages 216 and 217 of the grounds of detention booklet submits that it appears from the statement of wife of detenu that she is taking steps to move bail application (page 216) and there is a Special Report (page 217). Learned counsel submitted that both are undated. Even the signatures do not show the date on which the same have been signed. It was also pointed out that in