TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by a criminal court on the said application as a matter of rule, if it is to be held that such placement of the bail application and the order passed thereon is not mandatory in every case then in the facts and circumstances of this case whether such application and orders made thereon ought to have been placed before the detaining authority. The appellant was detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). Before his detention order was made on 8-11-2001, the appellant was arrested for indulging in the trade of bootlegging. Pursuant to the said arrest the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amely, his application for bail as well as the order of the Sessions Court made thereon were not placed before the detaining authority. The said contention along with other contentions of the appellant came to be rejected by the High Court holding that since the detaining authority had noticed the fact that the detenu did not come out on bail and that he remained to be a remand prisoner till the date of the detention order, hence, non-placement of the bail application or the order made thereon were not relevant material to be considered by the detaining authority. In this appeal it is contended that by virtue of the judgment of this Court in M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India ((1990) 2 SCC 1 1990 SCC (Cri) 258) it was mandatory for the det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration of the bail application and order made thereon would vitiate the order of detention. But we should notice that the said observation of this Court was made on facts of that case, therefore, we cannot read into that observation of this Court that in every case where there is an application for bail and an order made thereon, the detaining authority must as a rule be made aware of the said application and order made thereon. In our opinion the need of placing such application and order before the detaining authority would arise on the contents of those documents. If the documents do contain some material which on facts of that case would have some bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority then like any other vita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to consider and rely upon before passing the detention order and therefore they had to be supplied. From the above observations, it is clear that placing of the application for bail and the order made thereon are not always mandatory and such requirement would depend upon the facts of each case. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the abovesaid two judgments which in our opinion are not conflicting. We will now consider the question whether in the instant case the facts required the detaining authority to be aware of the contents of the bail application as also the order of the court thereon. From the facts of this case, we must note that the fact that the detenu was in custody was taken note of by the detaini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
