Nazine vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—Petitioner, cousin brother of one Raja @ Nainamalai @ Annamalai @ Bullet Raja, who was detained as "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982) under the impugned proceedings dated 25-10-2005, challenges the same.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the details in para 4 of the grounds of detention, contended that in the absence of pendency of any bail application, the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail is not based on any material and the said conclusion is liable to be interfered. In the light of the said contention, we verified para 4 of the grounds of detention. It is clear that the detaining authority was aware of the relevant fact that the detenu Raja @ Nainamalai @ Annamalai @ Bullet Raja is in remand and he has not filed any bail application. It further shows that he has also taken note of the fact that till the passing of the detention order, the detenu has not moved any bail application. Since the detaining authority considered the relevant question relating to imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail, we are satisfied that there is merely because the detenu has not filed any bail application for grant of bail, it cannot be construed that it would not be possible for him to come out by filing bail application. As rightly pointed out, in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has specifically expressed his awareness of all the relevant facts including the fact that non-filing of the bail application and there is imminent possibility of coming out on bail by filing application for the same. It is not disputed that the detenu/accused can very well file an application. As rightly pointed out, as the information/details furnished in Tamil version are more clear, we are of the view that the detaining authority was justified in arriving at a conclusion that there is imminent possibility of coming out on bail and in that event, no detention order could be passed against him. In the light of the details furnished and the awareness shown, we are of the view that there is no substance in the argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking us through the grounds of detention, contended that there is no details/ materials therein to show that the detenu disturbed public peace or public order. Here again, we are unable to accept the said contention. Para 2 of the grounds of detention gives all the details about antecedents and the facts relating to ground case and after stating all those details, his involvement in many cases, namely, dacoity in National Highway Road by stopping the lorries and other vehicles, in the next paragraph namely para 3, the detaining authority came to a definite conclusion that the detenu is habitually committing crimes and also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a Goonda. The learned Government Advocate has also brought to our notice the confessional statement of the detenu wherein he admitted his involvement in several Highway dacoities and also having been convicted in several cases not only in Tamil Nadu, but also in the neighbouring State namely, Karnataka. A reading of the confessional statement makes it clear that the detenu had involved in more cases and more Non Bailable Warrants are pending execution against him and number of stolen properties have been recovered pursuant to his confessional statement. Accordingly we reject the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no disturbance of public peace or public order upon the activities of the detenu.

By drawing our attention to para 4 of the grounds of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is discrepancy/variation between Tamil version and English version in the same paragraph. We verified both English and Tamil versions of para 4. As discussed in the earlier part of our order, the Tamil version of the grounds of detention are more clear and we are satisfied that there is no merit in the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The last contention relates to delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu dated 18-11-2005. As regards this, the learned Government Advocate has furnished the details which show that the representation was received by the Government on 25-10-2005, remarks were called for on 28-11-2005, remarks were received from the Collectorate on 8-12-2005, file submitted on 12-12-2005, Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary dealt with on 12-12-2005, finally Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 13-12-2005, rejection letter was prepared on 16-12-2005, rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 16-12-2005 and the same was served on the detenu on 20-12-200 5. If we ignore the intervening holidays, we are of the view that there is no undue delay as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner; accordingly this contention is also rejected.

In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference; accordingly, the petition fails and the same is dismissed.