Smt. Alima Bai vs The District Collector and District Magistrate, The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department and The Superintendent, Central Prison

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu by name Sathik @ Sathik Basha, who was detained as a ""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 17.8.2005,

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 our attention to the fact, submitted that though the detenu was arrested and

remanded for the offence u/s 302 IPC in Crime No. 34 6 of 2005 on the file of B2 Vishnukanchi Police Station in respect of occurrence that had

taken place on 16.7.2005, the detaining authority, while passing the order of detention has not considered the same and merely stated that the

ground occurrence in Crime No. 361 of 2005, which is for an offence u/s 307 IPC, arrived a conclusion that there is imminent possibility of his

coming out on bail by filing bail application. In other words, according to the learned counsel, when the detenu was already arrested and remanded

in graver offence, namely, offence u/s 302 IPC, in respect of 8th adverse case, in the absence of such awareness relating to the same, the passing

of the detention order based on the ground case which is for an offence u/s 307 IPC., the ultimate conclusion of the detaining authority is vitiated.

We verified the awareness shown by the detaining authority in respect of the imminent possibility, which is available in Paragraph 5 ( i) of the

grounds of detention. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen from the grounds of detention in respect of

occurrence that took place on 16.7.2005, the detenu was arrested for an offence in Crime No. 346 of 2005 and on the date of passing of the

detention order he is in prison and he has not come out on bail. While considering the imminent possibility of his coming out on bail, the detaining

authority has merely taken note of the ground case, namely, Crime No. 361 of 2005, which is for lessor offence, namely, 307 IPC.

In such circumstances, in the absence of awareness relating to the Crime No. 346 of 2005, which is for a graver offence of Section 302 IPC,

we are of the view that the detaining authority has failed to take note of relevant aspect while passing the order of detention. On this ground, we

are of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, we quash the same.

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

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