Annadurai vs The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department and The Commissioner of Police

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is detained as ''Goonda'' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities

of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil

Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by the impugned detention order dated 13.10.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of any bail application by the detenu and when he was in

remand on the date of passing of the detention order, the Detaining Authority has committed an error in holding that there was imminent possibility

of his coming out on bail, accordingly, the ultimate order passed by the authority is vitiated.

We verified the averments in paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention. It is seen that the Detaining Authority has taken note of the relevant

fact that on the date of the detention order, the detenu was in remand in R7 K.K. Nagar Police station Crime No.1624 of 2005 and that the

detenu has not moved any bail application. After finding that there is no bar in filing bail application and that if he files bail application, taking note of

the nature of offences committed, there is possibility of his coming out on bail; considering his past records and satisfying himself that if the detenu

comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he passed the order of detention.

In such circumstances, we find no merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

By taking us through the details furnished in the Arrest Report and Remand Requisition, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though

it is stated that the detenu was arrested and sent for remand on 15.09.2005, in fact, he was produced before the learned Magistrate only on

16.09.2005 and order was passed by the Magistrate on that date. According to him, the Arrest Report and the other document show as if the

detenu was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 15.09.2005 itself, which is incorrect, and this vital aspect has not been considered by

the Detaining Authority.

On perusal of the relevant documents, we are unable to accept the said contention. It is true that he was arrested on 15.09.2005. After

completing the formalities, he was produced before the Magistrate only on 16.09.2005 and the Magistrate, after finding ""no complaints against

police"", remanded the accused/detenu till 29.09.2005. This is evident from the order of the Magistrate dated 16.09.2005, which is available at

page No.122 of the paper book. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Finally, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there are discrepancies in respect of recovery. On perusal of Form-95, which is

available at page No.105 of the paper book, we find that the recovered items such as money, two watches and knife have been correctly stated.

Hence, there is no discrepancy as claimed by the counsel for petitioner.

In view of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.