@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S. Nagamuthu, J.@mdashChallenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition is to the Detention Order dated 30.05.2012 passed by the second respondent
in his proceedings in C.P.O/TC/IS/D.O. No. 27/2012 by which the second respondent has held that the petitioner is a Goonda and has ordered
him to be detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, u/s 3(1) of 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 (in short ""the
Act). Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly
contend that in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that, in a similar case, registered under Sec. 392 r/w. 397 IPC in
Woraiyur P.S.Cr. No. 989/2010 in Cr. MP. No. 1084/ 2010 on 2.6.2010, bail was granted to Thiru Kalidoss by the Sessions Court,
Tiruchirappalli. Having referred to the same, the Detaining Authority has further observed as follows:-
5...From this, I draw the inference that it is most likely of his (Basanth Lal) coming out on bail for the above case. If he comes out on bail, he may
indulge in such activities again as well, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of pubic order.
2. The learned counsel would further submit that to arrive at such a conclusion that there was most likely of the detenu coming out on bail, there
was no material available on record. The learned counsel would further point out that though it is stated in the grounds of detention that in similar
cases, bails are granted by the Courts concerned, the details of such cases, upon which the Detaining Authority had come to the said conclusion,
have not been furnished.
3. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Jothi Vs the Secretary to
Government, reported in 2012 (2) LW (Crl) 527 wherein, in identical circumstances, in Paragraph No. 17, the Division Bench has held as
follows:-
17. Further, unless, the similar cases referred to by the Detaining Authority, in the grounds of detention, are comparable with the cases relating to
the detenu, in all aspects, it would not be open to the Detaining Authority to arrive at his conclusion that the detenu would be enlarged on bail. In
the present case, It has not been shown that all the relevant materials relating to the similar cases, referred to by the Detaining Authority had been
furnished to the detenu, in order to enable him to make an effective representation against the detention order. The failure of the Detaining
Authority to furnish all the materials would, no doubt, cause substantial prejudice to the detenu, resulting in the failure on the part of the Detaining
Authority in following the mandate, enshrined in Clause (5) of the Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
4. Relying on the above Judgment of the Division Bench, the learned counsel would submit that in the case on hand also, since the materials relating
to the similar case have not been furnished to the detenu except bail order copy alone and since the satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining
Authority is not based on any relevant materials, the Detention Order is liable to be set aside.
5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Keeping in view the above legal principles, if we look into the facts involved in the case, there can be no dispute that the detaining authority had
come to the conclusion that there is real possibility of the accused coming out on bail and the said conclusion is based on the fact that in a similar
case in Woraiyur P.S.Cr. No. 989/2010, bail was granted to the accused therein. But, it is the contention of the petitioner that relevant documents
relating to the said case, such as FIR, Mahazar etc., have not been furnished. To the contrary, only copy of the bail order has been given. In our
considered opinion, non-furnishing of all these material documents to the detaining authority and non-consideration of the same would only indicate
the total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. The detaining authority in a mechanical fashion only on considering the bail
order has come to the conclusion that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.
7. The preventive detention is made not by way of punishment, but it is only by way of prevention. Though the same has got constitutional sanction,
it pre-supposes adherence to the constitutional safeguards. In this case, the said safeguards, as we have pointed out, have not been complied with.
Therefore, the impugned Detention Order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned
Detention Order passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in C.P.O./TC/IS/ D.O. No. 27/2012, dated 30.05.2012, is quashed. The
detenu, by name, Thiru. Basanth Lal, aged 45 years, S/o. Bihari Lal, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in
connection with any other case.