IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus between the grounds for detention and the likelihood of future offenses, not mere assumptions.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in No. 68/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 16.05.2024 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenue, namely J.Veerakumar, S/o. Jeyakumar, aged 30 years, GOONDA now he is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai before this Court and set at liberty.

The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 16.05.2024, is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Special report served on the detenue is undated.

3. The similar case relied on by the detaining Authority, which is dated 02.01.2024 in Crl.MP.No.23 of 2024 reveals that it is a case where statutory bail has been granted. The detaining Authority formed an opinion that the detenue was arrested and remanded by T-15, Kannagi Nagar Police Station in Crime Nos.129 of 2024 and 130 of 2024. He has not filed any bail petition sofar. However, the sponsoring Authority has stated that one Mr. J.Veerakumar's relative is taking steps to take him out on bail in the above cases where filed bail application in an appropriate court. In a similar case in Crime No.258/2023 registered at T-10, Manimangalam P.S. under Sections 294 (b), 341, 392, 397, 506 (ii) of IPC, bail was granted to the accused therein Mr.S.Ravikumar and enlarged on bail by Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District in Crl.MP.No.4374 of 2023 on 25.08.2023.

4. First of all in the above similar case referred, the Sessions Court granted statutory bail. Therefore, the comparison itself becomes irrelevant. While relying on the similar case, the detaining Authority must arrived at a conclusion that there is likelihood of grant of bail and relying on certain cases where statutory bail is granted would not be sufficient for the purpose of invoking Act 14 of 1982.

5. In the present case, the reference reflects non application of mind on the part of the detaining Authority. Proximity nexus or link are of paramount importance for the purpose of invoking preventive detention law. Mere reference about a similar case would be insufficient and such similar case must provide a reason to believe that there is likelihood of causing breach of public order at the instance of the detenue. Mere presumption or assumption of the detaining Authority is insufficient and the materials relied on must have proximity with reference to the opinion formed, which must lead to reason to believe.

6. The reasons and the materials relied on are the live link for the purpose of invoking Act 14 of 1982, since the Act is draconian in nature and invoked merely on the presumption that a person is going to commit a crime in future. Therefore, forming an opinion must be based on complete evidence and the subjective satisfaction and a reason to believe must be based on certain materials, which must reflects nexus or proximity.

7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings No. 68/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 16.05.2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., J.Veerakumar, S/o. Jeyakumar, aged 30 years, confined in Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.