K VARADHARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2002-8-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
August 19,2002
K.VARADHARAJ
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
M AHAMEDKUTTY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]ABDUL SATHAR IBRAHIM MANIK IBRAHIM SHAREEF M MADHAFUSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
KATIMAN YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2012-9-146] [REFERRED]T V SARAVANAN ALIAS S A R PRASANA VENKATACHAARIAR CHATURVEDI VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2006-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN BHOJANIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
MOHANAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-4-78] [REFERRED TO]
DESH RAJ VERMA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2004-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
NUSHATH KOYAMU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-345] [REFERRED TO]
PREMAVATHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2003-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
SATHISH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2005-7-153] [REFERRED TO]
RASHID KAPADIA VS. MEDHA GADGIL [LAWS(BOM)-2012-1-108] [REFERRED TO]
NAUSHEENA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-3-94] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD K CHAWLA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
SUNILA JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-2-37] [RELIED ON]
Kunal Kishore Singh @ Sonu Singh VS. State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-1-80] [REFERRED TO]
USHA A K VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2012-10-473] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL BHATI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-118] [REFERRED TO]
MISTER YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH HOME SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA [LAWS(PAT)-2012-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHAJITHA SUNEER VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-6-97] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITHRAMMA T VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(KAR)-2017-4-107] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESWARI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2003-4-125] [REFERRED TO]
NUSHATH KOYAMU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-92] [REFERRED TO]
ELUMALAI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2003-3-95] [REFERRED TO]
NAMRATA AVINASH KADU WIFE OF PAPPU @ AVINASH VASANT KADU VS. STATE OF MAHARSHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-12-82] [REFERRED TO]
FULLARA DEBBARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2007-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
THIRU VELU VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-275] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITHA MUJEEB REHMAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-10-429] [REFERRED TO]
RANI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2003-7-193] [REFERRED TO]
Suhasini Krishna Patil VS. R S Sharma [LAWS(BOM)-2004-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SALMA BEGUM VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS HYDERABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
NAUSHEENA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
Kunal Kishor Singh alias Sonu Singh VS. The State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-1-160] [REFERRED TO]
PHILIP VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2009-6-347] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Santosh Hegde, J. -
(1.)This appeal involves a very short question for our consideration. The question is: when a person is detained under a Detention Act, is it necessary for the detaining authority to take into consideration any bail application filed by the detenu and any order passed by a criminal Court on the said application as a matter of rule, if it is to be held that such placement of the bail application and the order passed thereon is not mandatory in every case then in the facts and circumstances of this case whether such application and orders made thereon ought to have been placed before the detaining authority
(2.)The appellant was detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). Before his detention order was made on 8-11-2001, the appellant was arrested for indulging in the trade of bootlegging. Pursuant to the said arrest the appellant had made an application for grant of bail before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri. In the said application the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, as per its order dated 19-10-2001 granted bail to the appellant and directed him to be released on bail on his executing a bond of Rs. 5,000/- with 2 sureties for the like sums, each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri. What is important to be noticed here is that the bail was granted because the Public Prosecutor had no objection. It is so recorded in the order granting bail. However, it is seen from records that the appellant was not able to furnish security as directed in the order granting bail, hence continued to be in custody. The order of detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 was made on 8-11-2001. It is an admitted fact that while making this order the detaining authority did not have before it the application for grant of bail nor the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting bail but the detaining authority took into consideration a remand order made by the Court to note the fact that the appellant is in Police custody.
(3.)The appellant challenged this detention order, inter alia, on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated by the fact of relevant documents which ought to have been considered by the detaining authority before coming to the conclusion that the appellant should be detained, namely, his application for bail as well as the order of the Sessions Court made thereon were not placed before the detaining authority. The said contention along with other contentions of the appellant came to be rejected by the High Court holding that since the detaining authority had noticed the fact that the detenu did not come out on bail and that he remained to be a remand prisoner till the date of the detention order, hence non-placement of the bail application or the order made thereon were not relevant material to be considered by the detaining authority.
(2.)The appellant was detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). Before his detention order was made on 8-11-2001, the appellant was arrested for indulging in the trade of bootlegging. Pursuant to the said arrest the appellant had made an application for grant of bail before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri. In the said application the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, as per its order dated 19-10-2001 granted bail to the appellant and directed him to be released on bail on his executing a bond of Rs. 5,000/- with 2 sureties for the like sums, each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri. What is important to be noticed here is that the bail was granted because the Public Prosecutor had no objection. It is so recorded in the order granting bail. However, it is seen from records that the appellant was not able to furnish security as directed in the order granting bail, hence continued to be in custody. The order of detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 was made on 8-11-2001. It is an admitted fact that while making this order the detaining authority did not have before it the application for grant of bail nor the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting bail but the detaining authority took into consideration a remand order made by the Court to note the fact that the appellant is in Police custody.
(3.)The appellant challenged this detention order, inter alia, on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated by the fact of relevant documents which ought to have been considered by the detaining authority before coming to the conclusion that the appellant should be detained, namely, his application for bail as well as the order of the Sessions Court made thereon were not placed before the detaining authority. The said contention along with other contentions of the appellant came to be rejected by the High Court holding that since the detaining authority had noticed the fact that the detenu did not come out on bail and that he remained to be a remand prisoner till the date of the detention order, hence non-placement of the bail application or the order made thereon were not relevant material to be considered by the detaining authority.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.