AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner is the father of the detenu by name Neelakandan. He challenges the impugned order of detention dated 26.08.2005, detaining his son 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).
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 there was delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. On a perusal of the particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate, we are of the view that, if we exclude the intervening holidays, there is no delay or let up at every occasion on the part of the Government. In such circumstances, the said contention is liable to be rejected.
Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no family member was intimated regarding the detention order passed against the detenu. Learned Government Advocate has produced the File which shows that the same was intimated to detenu''s mother by name Kaathayee on 27.08.2005 and the intimation was acknowledged by her in the presence of two witnesses. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
He also contended that there was no intimation to the family members immediately after the arrest of the detenu.
It is not in dispute that immediately after passing of the detention order, the detenu''s mother was duly intimated as mentioned above. Further, the said issue, viz., as to whether anyone was intimated regarding arrest, according to the Government Advocate, was not relied on by the Detaining Authority. In other words, according to him, even if there is any violation, viz., failure to intimate the arrest etc., in terms of the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1997 SCC Cri 92 D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the detention order cannot be quashed on the said ground followed by this Court in Vadivel v. The State of Tamilnadu and Anr. 2000 1 L.W. Cri 443.
Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the first adverse case relates to a graver offence, viz., u/s 302 IPC., in the absence of any bail petition, there is no imminent possibility of coming out of the detenu. According to him, this material aspect has not been considered by the Detaining Authority.
As against the above argument, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that in respect of the first adverse case occurrence, which is dated 16.05.2003 relating to offences under Sections 302 and 380 IPC in Crime No. 416 of 2003 on the file of Manachanallur Police Station, requisition for P.T. warrant alone was made and no order has been passed by the lower court. In fact, he demonstrated before us that in respect of adverse cases-1, 2 and 3, there was no order remanding the accused/detenu to custody. On the other hand, reference made in paragraph No. 4 of the grounds of detention relates to Crime No. 417/05 in respect of 7th adverse case; Cr. No. 500/2005 in respect of 5th adverse case; Crime No. 501 of 2005 in respect of 4th adverse case and Crime No. 504 of 2005 in respect of the ground case. Thus, it is clear that in respect of adverse case Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the detenu was not remanded by order of the court. In such circumstances, the Detaining Authority is perfectly right in arriving at a satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application in respect of the ground case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
We do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.