S. Tamilvanan, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is made to the order of detention passed by the first respondent vide Proceedings No. 363/2015 dated 30.04.2015, whereby the petitioner/detenu, by name, Ramesh, S/o.Veeraiah, aged 43 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions 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) branding him as a "GOONDA".
(2.) THOUGH many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.S.Rajeswaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non -application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the 3rd and 4th adverse cases (Cr.Nos.1066/2015 and 1067/2015) and also in the ground case [Cr.No.578/2015] registered by F -5 Choolaimedu and F -3 Nungambakkam Police Stations respectively and the detenu has not moved any bail applications in the said 3rd and 4th adverse cases as on the date of the passing of the detention order. He would also contend that the detaining authority has placed reliance on the statement of the sponsoring authority to the effect that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail applications in the 3rd and 4th adverse cases. Further, it is submitted that the detenu was granted bail in the ground case [Cr.No.578/2015] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.MP.No.6244/2015 and that the detaining authority has not made any mention as to whether the detenu has furnished sureties in the said case, as on the date of passing of the detention order. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the detenu has not moved any bail applications in the said adverse cases. When no bail applications are filed, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude/to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail in the said adverse cases and there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said cases. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non -application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said adverse cases, is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] : 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER]; [b] : 2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] and [c] : 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR].
(3.) PER contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.;