Preventive detention valid despite bail if authority aware of custody and provides cogent reasons for release likelihood and prejudicial risk; absent here due to non-similar case reliance.

JUDGMENT :

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Anthony Prakash, Son of Alexander, 32 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S. Confdl.No. 81/2025 dt. on 09.07.2025, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the order passed by the Detaining Authority.

3. Apart from the other grounds that were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the main ground that was raised by the learned counsel is that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu had not filed any bail applications in 4 adverse cases and having taken note of the same, the detaining authority considered an order passed in Crl.MP.No.2572 of 2024 dated 18.11.2024 and came to the conclusion that bail was granted in that case and therefore there was likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in those 4 adverse cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail order that was relied upon by the detaining authority is not a similar case and the same reflects non application of mind.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and gone through the detention order dated 09.07.2025.

5. In the case in hand, there were 9 adverse cases and one ground case. Insofar as the ground case is concerned, the same was registered in Crime No.287 of 2025 for the offences under Section 296(b), 115(1), 109(1), and 351(3) of the BNS 2023. On going through the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has taken note of the fact that the detenu had filed a bail petition in Crl.MP.No.2695 of 2025 in the ground case and bail was also granted by an order dated 30.06.2025 by the Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. By the time the sureties were produced. The detention order came to be passed.

6. In view of the above, one of the contention that was raised is that the detaining authority ought not to have passed the detention order when bail has already been granted by a competent Court.

7. We are not in agreement with the above submission. The law is no longer res integra and it is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Etc vs Union Of India reported in 1992(1) SCC 1 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder :

12. The Constitution Bench in Rameshwar Shaw case held thus: (SCR p. 929)

"... whether the detention of the said person would be neces- sary after he is released from jail, and if the authority is bona fide satisfied that such detention is necessary, he can make a valid order of detention a few days before the person is likely to be released.

Therefore, we are satisfied that the question as to whether an order of detention can be passed against a person who is in detention or in jail, will always have to be determined in the circumstances of each case.'

Following the above principles, another bench of three Judges of this Court in N. Meera Rani v. Government of T.N.18, after reviewing the various other decisions, it was observed that: "A review of the above b decisions reaffirms the position which was settled by the decision of a Constitution Bench in Rameshwar Shaw case" and that "none of the observations made in any subsequent case can be construed at variance with the principle indicated