Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2842 (MAD)

Arunachalam v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Another

2006-10-25

P.SATHASIVAM, S.TAMILVANAN

body2006
Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in C4/Do.6/2006 dated 4.8.2006 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Anbu Gandhi, S/o Jayapal before this Court, set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who is the friend of the detenu, by name Anbu Gandhi, who is 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 04.08.2006, challenges the same in this Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the averments made in paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention submitted that, the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 4. While elaborating the above submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to our notice that though the detaining authority has noted that the detenu viz., Anbugandhi has filed a bail application before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, in Crl.M.P.No.3076/2006 and the same was dismissed on 04.07.2006 and again he filed a bail application before the High Court, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No.19569/2006 on 24.07.2006 and the same is pending, he has arrived at a conclusion mechanically that "... however there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application for the above case since in similar cases bails are granted by the concerned Court or Higher Courts after lapse of time ...". however there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application for the above case since in similar cases bails are granted by the concerned Court or Higher Courts after lapse of time ...". As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detaining authority, having found that the bail application filed by the detenu is pending before the High Court, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No.19569 of 2006, has arrived at a conclusion that it would be possible for the detenu to come out on bail by filing bail application before the concerned Court or higher Courts, which amply shows his non application of mind in arriving imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail. It is not in dispute that when the bail application filed earlier is still pending, unless the said petition is dismissed, the detenu cannot move another bail application. We are satisfied that the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be sustained and the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non application of mind and accordingly, the same is quashed. 5. 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 connection with some other case or cause.