Babu vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu by name Nagaraj, who was detained as a ''Bootlegger'' 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 07.10.2005, 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 by drawing out attention to paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention contended that though the

detaining authority has stated that the detenu is in remand and has not filed any bail application, based on the same, the detaining authority has

passed the impugned order of detention. According to the counsel, even on 03.10.2005, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore has dismissed

the bail petition in Crl.M.P. No. 8025 of 2005. According to him, the said order was passed after hearing the Public Prosecutor. He further

contended that inasmuch as this order was passed on 03.10.2005, the sponsoring authority, who is a party to the said order ought to have

forwarded the same to the detaining authority, since the detention order was passed much later i.e. on 07.10.2005. He further contended that

inasmuch as the detaining authority has failed to consider the relevant materials viz., the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, dismissing

the bail petition of the detenu, the ultimate order passed by him is vitiated.

It is not in dispute that in para 5, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu has not filed any bail application in the Court. On the other

hand, the order produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the bail application in Crl.M.P. No. 8025/2005 filed by the detenu

came to be dismissed even on 03.10.2005 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore. As stated earlier, the said order was passed after hearing the

Additional Public Prosecutor therein.

In such circumstances, the sponsoring authority, being a party to the said order, ought to have forwarded the said information and placed the

order for consideration before the detaining authority. We sustain the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on this ground

the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to beset at liberty

forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.