@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Jaichandren, J.@mdashThis Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated
17.9.2011, made in No. 19/BDFGISSV/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Alaguraja, s/o. Singathevan, aged about
33 years, confined in the Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and to set him at liberty. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent
had passed the impugned detention order, dated 17.09.2011 under sub-section (1) of the Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video
Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), read with the order issued by the State Government, in G.O.(D) No. 119, Home, Prohibition
and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of Alaguraja, in the
Central Prison, Madurai, terming him as a ''Goonda''.
2. Even though various grounds had been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner had placed emphasis on the grounds, mentioned hereunder, while stating that the impugned detention order passed by the Detaining
Authority is bad in the eye of law. He had submitted that there was clear non-application of mind, on the part of the Detaining Authority, while
passing the detention order against the detenu.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had referred to the relevant paragraph of the grounds of detention, which reads as follows:
5. I am aware that Tr. Alaguraja s/o. Singathevan, is in remand in the ground case in C4 Thilagarathdal PS Cr. No. 2352/2011 and also in second
adverse case in C5 Karimedu PS Cr No. 1941/2011, and the third adverse case in C5 Karimedu PS Cr. No. 1947/2011 at the Central Prison,
Madurai. I am also aware that the bail application filed on behalf of Tr. Alaguraja S/o. Singathevan, in the second adverse case in C5 Karimedu
PS Cr. No. 1941/2011 and third adverse case in C5 Karimedu PS Cr. No. 1947/2011 vide Crl. MP No. 3919/2011 and Crl MP No.
3941/2011, respectively were dismissed by the JM No. V, Madurai on 14.9.2011. Similarly, the bail application filed on behalf of Tr. Alaguraja
s/o. Singathevan, in the ground case in C4 Thilagarthidal PS Cr. No. 2352/2011, vide Crl MP No. 6647/2011 was also dismissed on 14.9.2011
by the J.M. No. II, Madurai. Further, I am aware through the statement Tr. Selvakumar, younger brother of Tr. Alaguraja s/o. Singathevan, that
he is making efforts to file bail further bail applications in the said ground case in C4 Thilagarthidal PS Cr.NO.2352/2011, second adverse case in
C5 Karimedu PS Cr.NO.1941/2011 and also in third adverse case in C5 Karimedu PS Cr.NO.1947/2011. Hence, I am also aware that there is
a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing further bail applications in the above said ground case and second adverse case and third
adverse case in which he is in remand since in similar cases bails are granted by the concerned Court or Higher Court, which was evident from the
bail granted to one accused Tr. Pandi @ Super Pandi concerned in B4 Keeraithurai PS Cr. NO. 201/2008 u/s. 341, 279, 326, 506(ii) IPC &
25(1) Arms Act, which was similar to the offence in the ground case and also the anticipatory bail order granted to the said Tr. Alaguraja in the
first adverse case in C5 Karimedu PS Cr. No. 181/2010 which was similar to the offences in the second and third adverse cases. If he comes out
on bail, he will indulge in future activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore there is a compelling necessity to
pass this order of detention with a view to preventing him from indulging in such prejudicial activities in future. Further, the recourse to normal
criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that the said Tr. Alaguraja s/o. Singathevan, is a ''''Goonda"" and
there is a compelling necessity to detain him from indulging in acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
4. He had further submitted that, it is clear, from the above paragraph, that the Detaining Authority was aware that the detenu had been remanded
in custody, in crime No. 2352 of 2011, on the file of the C4, Thilagarthidal Police Station. He had further submitted that a bail application filed for
the said case in Cr.M.P. No. 6647 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Madurai, had been dismissed, on 14.9.2011. Thus, the
statement of the Detaining Authority that the detention order was being passed, in order to prevent the detenu from indulging in activities prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order, has been made, without any materials on record. As such, it is clear that it is an ipse dixit of the Detaining
Authority. It clearly shows the non-application of mind, by the Detaining Authority, while passing the detention order.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that, even though the Detaining Authority had stated that there is a real
possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, by filing a bail application, no materials were available on record for the Detaining Authority to arrive at
such a conclusion. He had further submitted that the Detaining Authority has not made out a case against the detenu, to show that there was an
imminent or a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail.
6. It had been further submitted that, even though the Detaining Authority had made a mention about similar cases, in which bail orders had been
granted, complete details of such cases had not been furnished to the detenu, in order to enable him to make an effective representation against the
detention order.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in Rekha Vs. State of T. Nadu tr. Sec. to Govt. and
Another, wherein, it has been held that, where a detention order is passed against a person already in custody, there should be a real possibility of
his release on bail, if he has moved a bail application, and if it is pending. It follows, logically, that if no bail application is pending, then there is no
likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence, the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this
rule, that is, where a co-accused, whose case stands on the same footing, had been granted bail. In such cases, the Detaining Authority can
reasonably conclude that there is a likelihood of the detenu being released on bail, even though no bail application of his is pending, since, most
courts, normally, grant bail on this ground. However, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, without which, the bald statement of the
authority cannot be believed.
8. The learned counsel had also submitted that, if a person is already in prison, unless a co-accused in the alleged offence had already been
released, it cannot be concluded that there is an imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, and that he would indulge in activities
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Even in such a case, the co-accused ought to have been involved in the committing of the alleged
offence, similar to that of the detenu, in all aspects. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that there were no cogent materials
available before the Detaining Authority for the passing of the detention order, based on his subjective satisfaction.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the Habeas Corpus Petition,
filed on behalf of the detenu, is premature in nature. He had submitted that the Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed even before the order of
detention, passed by the Detaining Authority, had been considered by the Advisory Board. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. He had relied on
the decision of the Kerala High Court, in R.P. Goyal and Another Vs. The State of Kerala and Others, wherein, it has been held that the
protection envisaged by the Constitution of an Advisory Board, for looking into the defects in the passing of an order of detention, is a substantial
protection. Normally, therefore, before the order has become final, on the application of mind relating to the question of existence or otherwise of
the grounds justifying the detention, by the State Government, and the Advisory Board expressing its opinion, as to whether there is sufficient cause
for such detention, it should not be interfered with by the High Court, as it should not deal with the question on insufficient material.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in A. Geetha Vs. State of
Tamilnadu (CDJ 2006 SC 702), wherein, it had been held that the only requirement is that the Detaining Authority should be aware that the detenu
is already in custody and that he is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipse-dixit of the
Detaining Authority. It would be sufficient if the Detaining Authority came to the conclusion, by his subjective satisfaction, based on the relevant
materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with.
11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in A. Geetha Vs. State of
Tamilnadu (CDJ 2006 SC 702), wherein, it had been held that the only requirement is that the Detaining Authority should be aware that the detenu
is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipse-dixit of the
Detaining Authority. It would be sufficient if the Detaining Authority came to the conclusion, by his subjective satisfaction, based on the relevant
materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with, by the courts of law.
12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of
the records available, and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that there was no proper application of mind, by
the Detaining Authority, in passing the impugned detention order against the detenu. The non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority, at the
time of the passing of the detention order, is also clear from the fact that the bail application filed in Cr.M.P. No. 6647 of 2011, on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Madurai, had been dismissed, on 14.9.2011.
13. Even though the Detaining Authority had stated, in the grounds of detention, that there is an imminent or a real possibility of the detenu coming
out on bail, there is nothing available on record to substantiate such a claim. Unless, there are sufficent and cogent materials for the Detaining
Authority to arrive at his conclusion that there is an imminent or a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in activities, which
would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the conclusion of the Detaining Authority would be a mere ipse dixit and as such, the
conclusion arrived at by the Detaining Authority cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law.
14. 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.
15. Even though the Detaining Authority had stated that there was a compelling necessity to detain the detenu, in order to prevent him from
indulging in activities, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, no cogent materials were available on record to substantiate
such a claim.
16. In a number of decisions this Court had held that cogent materials should be available for the Detaining Authority to arrive at his subjective
satisfaction for the passing of the detention order. The materials available on record should be sufficient for the Detaining Authority to arrive at his
decision that the detenu is likely to be enlarged on bail and that, in such a case, he would indulge in activities, which would be prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. Unless, such materials are available, the decision of the Detaining Authority to detain the detenu, by passing the
detention order, would clearly be an indication of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, in the passing of the detention
order.
16.1) In Velumurugan @ Velu Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Another, it had been held as follows:
3... unless there is a clear expression by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention with reference to the imminent possibility of the detenu
being released on bail by filing bail application, the detaining authority would not choose to pass the detention order. In order to prevent the detenu
from committing the acts, which would be disturbance to public order and public health, the detaining authority shall consider the materials and on
the basis of subjective satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail or likelihood of the detenu being released on
bail, the detaining authority may pass such an order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. When such an essential requirement, namely, the imminent
possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, is absent, it has to be held that the order of detention is vitiated.
16.2) In Kasthuri Vs. The District Collector and D.M., Kancheepuram (2009 (1) MWN (Cr.) 418 (DB), this Court had set aside the detention
order passed against the detenu stating that the Detaining Authority had not followed the guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court, in D.K.
Basu Vs. State of W.B, (1997 SCC (Cri) 92), and the other decisions of the Supreme Court, wherein, the following facts were considered as
being violative of the orders of preventive detention passed by the Detaining Authorities concerned:
(a) Non-intimation of the detention order to any of the family members or friends within a reasonable time
(b) Delay in considering the representation made by the detenu or any other person interested, on behalf of the detenu.
(c) Non-supply of copies of material documents relied on by the Detaining Authority.
(d) Furnishing illegible copies of documents, so as to prevent detenu from making effective representation as contemplated under the Act.
(e) Non-furnishing of copies translated in the language known to the detenu for making effective representation.
(f) Non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority in having subjective satisfaction while passing the order.
16.3) In A. Murugesan Vs. Secretary to Government (2010 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 950), it had been held that, while no bail application had been filed on
behalf of the detenu, before the Court concerned, it would be too early for the detaining authority to record his satisfaction that the detenu is likely
to come out on bail or that, if he is let to remain at large, he would indulge in such activities, in future, which would be prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. Unless, cogent materials are available, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority would be a clear indication
of the non-application of mind by the detaining authority in the passing of the detention order.
16.4) In Balaji Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010 (1) CTC 820), a Division Bench of this Court, referring to the decisions, in Chandru Vs. The
Commissioner of Police, Thiruchirapalli City, Trichy and another (2007 (1) TCJ 766, and Chelladurai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by
Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009, and another, had held that the mere
statement of the Detaining Authority, that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, especially, when no bail application had been
filed on behalf of the detenu, shall not be sufficient to show that the satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority is based on cogent materials.
16.5) In Soosai @ Balu Vs. The Secretary to Government (2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 413 (DB)), it had been held as follows:
4... In the second and Third Adverse cases and also in the Ground case, the detenu has not moved for any bail. Apart from this, the Second
Adverse case is one for murder. But the Authority has mechanically stated in the order that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on
bail. The said observation is without any basis or material much less cogent material, which the law would require.
16.6) In Gowri Vs. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department and The District Collector and
District Magistrate, , this Court had held that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority was without sufficient or cogent
materials, relying on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, in Kalaiselvi, G. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu ( 2007 (5) CTC 657), wherein, it
had been held as follows:
24.From the reading of the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the conclusion of the Detaining Authority that there is imminent an possibility of the
detenu being released on bail must be based on cogent materials and not on the mere ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority. As has been observed
by the Supreme Court, the question as to whether there is possibility of being released on bail depends upon several factors, such as nature of
offence, the stage of the investigation, the availability of statutory bail as envisaged u/s 167(2), Proviso of Cr.P.C. Even though it is not possibilt nor
desirable to enumerate the circumstances in which bail is likely to be granted, one can venture to say that it is very rare for a Court of law to grant
bail during pendency of the investigation when there is allegation of commission of serious offence, such as punishable u/s 302 or Section 395,
I.P.C. On the other hand, it is also safe to conclude that in offences relating to prohibition laws or white collar offences, the Courts usually grant
bail notwithstanding the fact that in offences relating to prohibition laws or white collar offences, the Courts usually grant bail notwithstanding the
fact that investigation may be still going on. Similarly, when a charge-sheet is not filed within the statutory period contemplated, notwithstanding the
seriousness of the allegation, on the expiry of the period, the accused got a right to be released on bail.
25. In the present case, the conclusion of the Detaining Authority, as already been extracted. We have searched for the materials on record in
support of such conclusion and we find none. There was no imminent possibility of the detenu obtaining statutory bail as hardly 60 days had
elapsed from the date of the arrest and the investigating agency had more than a month for completion of the investigation. The alleged offence u/s
302, IPC cannot be characterised as an offence of routine nature which would prompt any Court to grant bail even before completion of
investigation. Top of it, the Bail Application had in fact been rejected by the Sessions Judge and no other Bail Application was pending. In such a
factual situation, in our considered opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court in T.V. Saravanan @ S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi
Vs. State through Secretary and Another, is squarely applicable and it can be said that the conclusion of the Detaining Authority is mere ipse dixit
and there is hardly any material in support of such conclusion. On this score also, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
16.7) In M. Rajesh Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu (2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 279 (DB)), it had been held that, when no bail application is
pending, the decision of the Detaining Authority that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail would show the non-application of
mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, in passing the detention order. In such circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that the
impugned detention order, dated 17.9.2011, passed by the Detaining Authority, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
Hence, it is set aside. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his
detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.