The impaired subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the detenu's imminent possibility of being enlarged on bail led to the setting aside of the impugned preventive detention order.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to order made in BCDFGISSSV No.206/2022 dated 01.12.2022 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu A.Ajith Kumar @ Gana Ajith, son of Arumugam, aged about 23 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, 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 mother of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 01.12.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.206/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned preventive detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.

2. Impugned preventive 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, Sand-offenders, 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 are five adverse cases. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.623 of 2022 on the file of T-12 Selaiyur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 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.G.Nirmal Krishnan, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

5. In the support affidavit qua captioned HCP, several points/grounds have been raised/urged but in the final hearing today, learned counsel for petitioner projected his argument on the point that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority as regards imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail is impaired. Elaborating on this submission, learned counsel drew our attention to a portion of paragraph 4 of the grounds of impugned preventive detention order which reads as follows:

''4......However, it is pertinent to note that in a similar case, registered at Sankar Nagar P.S. Cr.No.617/2021 u/s. 341, 336, 427, 392, 397, 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused Vinoth Kumar @ Vinoth by the Principal Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.No.5200/2021 on 20.11.2021. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in T-12 Selaiyur Police Station Crl.No.623/2022 since in the similarly placed cases, bails were granted by the courts after a lapse of time......''

6. We had the benefit of perusing the aforementioned bail order [we shall refer to the same as ''Vinoth''s case'' as Vinoth is the petitioner therein]. In Vinoth''s case bail order, it is stated as follows:

''...Further, no bad antecedent is reported against the petitioner.....''

7. Adverting to the aforementioned portion of Vinoth''s case bail order, learned counsel for petitioner submits that even according to the impugned preventive detention order, there are as many as five adverse cases in the case on hand and therefore, the comparison is bad. We have no hesitation in accepting the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that