Dr. S. Tamilvanan, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is made to the order of detention passed by the first respondent vide Proceedings in Cr.M.P. No. 12/G/2015/E1 dated 13.03.2015, whereby the detenu, by name Paraman @ Paramasivan, S/o. Sivan, aged about 23 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 her as a "Goonda".
(2.) THOUGH many grounds have been raised in the petition, 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 detenue has been in remand in the ground case in Cr. No. 905/2014 registered by Sulur Police Station and the detenu has not moved any bail application in the ground case 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 application in the said case. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the detenu has not moved any bail application in the ground case and he is in remand in the said case. When no bail application is 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 ground case and there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case. 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 real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case 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]; [c] : 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR] and [d], 2008 [3] MLJ (Crl.) 144 [S. ANDAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI AND ANOTHER].
(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.;