JARINABEGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife of the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition. THE detenu has been detained as a "Video Pirate" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). Such order of preventive detention was passed by the second respondent District Collector on 26.4.2006.

(2.) IN support of the petitioner, it has been asserted that without considering the bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, the detaining authority has come to the conclusion that the detenu "... has moved bail application before the Judicial Magistrate No.1 Court, Thanjavur in Cr.M.P.No.-2565/2006 and the same is pending" (The number 2565 is written in the order in ink). It has been further submitted that in the absence of cogent materials, the detaining authority should not have come to the conclusion that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and such inference should be based on material on records and should not be mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority. Besides the above contention, the petitioner has also raised the question of non-application of mind and the fact that in the grounds of detention the number relating to Cr.M.P. for bail application had been filled up in black colour ink, which would indicate that such application was not placed before the detaining authority. It has been further submitted that such bail application has not been included in the booklet which had been supplied to the detenu.

(3.) FROM the above materials as well as the submissions made during hearing of the case, it is apparent that the detaining authority claims that copy of the bail application numbered as Crl.M.P.No.2565 of 2006 relating to Crime No.30/2006 had been placed before the detaining authority and on the aforesaid basis, the detaining authority had come to the conclusion that there was every possibility of the detenu being released on bail. In other words, by the own admission of the detaining authority, the bail application filed on behalf of the detenu was a document relied upon by him to come to a subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail in Crime No.30/2006. In the original counter affidavit it has been further claimed:- ". . . The second respondent after verifying the bail petition filed by the detenu, arrived at a subjective satisfaction that he may be released on bail by the same court or the higher courts as the case may be as the commission of offence committed by the detenu is a bailable one."