IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 requires the detaining authority to demonstrate subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of detention to maintain public order, and procedural lapses that do not materially affect the detenu's rights do not invalidate the detention.

ORDER :

Dr. G. Jayachandran, C. Kumarappan, JJ.

[PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in M.H.S.Confdl.No.33 of 2023, dated 27.03.2023, on the file of the second respondent herein, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu, namely, the petitioner's son i.e., Kannan, aged about 22 years, S/o. Rajan, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.]

This Petition to quash the detention order dated 27.03.2023 under the Act 14/1982 issued against one Kannan is filed by the mother of the detenu on the ground that, the detention order passed without proper application of mind to the facts of the case.

2. The petitioner contended that her son was falsely implicated in two adverse cases and one ground case. All the three cases were registered by Radhapuram Police on 07.03.2023. Twenty days later, the detention order was passed on 27.03.2023 stating that Kannan is indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public peace. The allegations against him in these three cases at the most will be only a 'law and order' issue and not a 'public order' issue. On the date of the detention order for the two adverse cases in Crime No.37 of 2023 and Crime No.38 of 2023, his bail applications were pending and for the ground case in Crime No.39 of 2023, he did not prefer any bail application. While so, without proper application of mind by citing a dissimilar case, the detaining authority has recorded that there is likelihood of getting bail in future and if the detenu is released on bail, he will indulge in activities prejudicial to public peace. Also, the similar case bail petition not supplied to the detenu. The detention order was not properly intimated to the relatives of the detenu. Under Section 3 (3) of the Act 14/1982, the detention order ought to be forwarded to the Government forthwith. In this case, the detaining authority had not complied the said mandatory provision. The copy of the report and the date of despatch of the report to the first respondent not furnished to the detenu. The detention order failed to inform the detenu that he has right to lead evidence through witness before the advisory board. The said failure has caused grave prejudice to the detenu. Apprehension of likelihood to get bail cannot be a reason for imposing preventive detention. The detaining authority failed to furnish the recommendation of the sponsoring authority in spite of demanding to furnish.

3. Rebutting each and every ground, the second respondent has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that, based on the complaint given by one Senthil Kumar, S/o.Essakki, a case under Section 307 I.P.C. was pending against the detenu since 2021. The detenu was pressurising Esakki to advise his son to withdraw the complaint. When they refused to withdraw the complaint to threaten them, the detenu along with his associates set fire to the vehicles parked in front of the Essakki's house during the early hours of 07.03.2023. When Essakki noticed it and raised alarm, the detenu and his associates threatened him saying, like the two wheelers they will set him also under fire. Threw bottles at him and left the place. After some time, the same gang set fire to the two wheeler of one Arulkumar. Two cases were registered, one in Crime No.37 of 2023 and another in Crime No.38 of 2023. Coming to know about the registration of cases against him and his associates, at about 07.00 a.m. on the same day (07.03.2023), Essakki was passing through Radhapuram Government Hospital Bus Stop, the detenu and his associates came in a motor cycle and restrained Essakki and stabbed him with knife for not withdrawing the complaint against him. When the public nearby came to rescue Essakki, the d