The flawed subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail vitiates the preventive detention order.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, to call for the records pertaining to the order of Detention dated 15.02.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent in No.43/BCDFGISSSV/2023 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the Detenu Mr.Raju @ Arokkiyaraju S/o.Mahendran, male aged about 39 years now confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal ,Chennai before this Hon''ble court and set him at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. When the captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] was listed in the Admission Board on 07.07.2023, this Court made the following order:

''H.C.P.No.1170 of 2023

M.SUNDAR, J.

and

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

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

Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 27.06.2023 inter alia assailing a ''detention order dated 15.02.2023 bearing reference No.43/BCDFGISSSV/2023'' [hereinafter ''impugned preventive detention order'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] made by ''second respondent'' [hereinafter ''Detaining Authority'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.

2. To be noted, wife of detenu is the petitioner.

3. Mr.S.Senthilkumar, learned counsel on record for petitioner is before us. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ground case qua the detenu is for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 397, 506(ii) read with 34 of ''Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)'' [''IPC'' for the sake of brevity] in Crime No.724 of 2022 on the file of Otteri police station.

4. The aforementioned impugned preventive detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' under Section 2(f) of ''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].

5. The impugned preventive detention order has been assailed inter alia on the ground that family members of the detenu are not properly informed about the detention of the detenu.

6. Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four weeks.

7. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice for all respondents. List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly.''

2. The aforementioned Admission Board order captures essentials that are imperative for appreciating this order and therefore, we are not setting out the same again. However, short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the Admission Board order will continue to be used in the instant order also for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

3. Mr.S.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

4. As would be evident from paragraph No.5 of the Admission Board order, at the time of admission, learned counsel posited his challenge against the impugned preventive detention order on the point that family members of the detenu were not properly informed about the detention. However, today in the final hearing Board, learned counsel predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the point that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority as regards imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail is impaired. In this regard, learned counsel drew our attention to a