The reliance on a bail order granted during the Covid-19 situation to assess the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail impaired the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, leading to the impugned preventive detention order being vitiated and set aside.

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, call for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner''s brother-in-law Manikandan @ Vellai Mani, S/o. Pakkiri, Male, aged about 30 years is presently lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal at Chennai – 600 066 and has been detained under Act 14/82 as a “Goonda” vide detention order dated 30.03.2023, made in Memo. No.91/BCDFGISSSV/2023 by the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenu before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Puzhal at Chennai.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by uncle of the detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 30.03.2023 bearing reference No.91/BCDFGISSSV/2023'' [hereinafter ''impugned preventive detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity] made by second respondent (hereinafter ''detaining authority'' for the sake of convenience). To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority.

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 is no adverse case. The ground case which constitutes sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.108 of 2023 on the file of P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 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 preventive detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr.M.Rajavelu, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on one point which turns on subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority qua imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail. Learned counsel submitted that such subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the Detaining Authority by relying on Balaji''s case bail order being bail order dated 26.05.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.10485 of 2021 on the file of Sessions Court, Chennai. Relevant portion in paragraph No.3 of the grounds of detention reads as follows:

''3. ... In a similar case registered u/s 147, 148, 449, 324, 302 IPC in R3 Ashok Nagar Police Station in Cr.No.59/2021, the bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.10485/2021. Hence, I infer that there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application in P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Crime No.108/2023 before the appropriate Court, since in a similar case, the bail was granted by court after a lapse of time. ...''

6. A careful perusal of Balaji''s case bail order, more particularly paragraph 5 thereat brings to light that the then prevailing Covid-19 situation had weighed in the minds of the learned Sessions Judge in granting bail. Paragraph 5 of Balaji''s case bail order reads as follows:

''5. The petitioners have been in custody for the past 75 days. No previous case is reported as against the petitioners. Considering the d