@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K.N. Basha, J.@mdashThe petitioner is the father of the detenue. The petitioner has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking for the relief of quashing the detention order dated 24.06.2010, slapped on his son branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of dangerous activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).
2. Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned Counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the detaining authority has passed the impugned order mechanically and casually without any cogent materials available on record for arriving at the conclusion that the detenu is very likely to come out on bail. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in paragraph No. 6 of the grounds of detention, it is specifically stated by the detaining authority that the bail application moved by the detenu was pending for disposal and in spite of the same, without any materials available on record, the detaining authority has drawn the inference to the effect that the detenu is very likely to come out on bail and as such the impugned detention order is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.
3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned detention order. It is contended that as the detenu himself preferred the bail application and the same was pending disposal and as such the detaining authority has thought it fit to infer that the detenu is very likely to come out on bail.
4. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by either side and perused the impugned order of detention.
5. At the outset, it is to be stated that the impugned detention order was passed casually and mechanically without any cogent materials available on record for arriving at the conclusion that the detenu is very likely to come out on bail. It is pertinent to note that in paragraph No. 6 of the detention order, it is specifically mentioned by the detaining authority that a bail application was preferred by the detenu and the same was pending for disposal. In spite of mentioning the same, the detaining authority, proceeded to infer in the absence of any materials available on record to come to the conclusion that the detenu is very likely to come out on bail. It is to be stated that the detaining authority has not even mentioned about the reason that the detenu is very likely to come out on bail. It is seen that the detaining authority has also not made any reference about the granting of bail in any similar case.
6. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in T.V. Saravanan alias S.A.R. Prasanna Venkatachariar Chaturvedi v. State, through Secretary and Anr. reported in 2006 (1) MLJ 539. The Hon''ble Apex court in the said decision held as hereunder:
The Courts had rejected the bail applications moved by the appellant and there was no material whatsoever to apprehend that he was likely to move a bail application or that there was imminent possibility of the prayer for bail being granted. The "imminent possibility" of the appellant coming out on bail is mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority unsupported by any material whatsoever. There was no cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which the detaining authority could be satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record. In the absence of such material on record the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of detention.
7. The principle laid down in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case also, the detaining authority in the absence of cogent material available on record inferred by merely placing reliance that the detenu is very likely to come out on bail and has mechanically and casually passed the impugned detention order. In view of the same, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent is vitiated.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the first respondent in Detention Order No. 26/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 24.06.2010, is hereby quashed and the detenu is set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
