TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant and upheld his detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The detaining authority finding the appellant to be a 'goonda' under the provisions of the Act and there being a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him for indulging in such further activities in future which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order passed the impugned order of detention on 15th December, 2004. 2. The appeal came up for hearing before us on December 13, 2005. Since the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the instances given in the detention order, at best, created a problem of law and order and did not in any manner adversely affect public order. The allegations were to the effect that taking advantage of the faith reposed in him, he cheated many of his followers of substantial amounts making false promises and giving false assurances. In one case there was also an allegation of sexually exploiting the wife and daughter of the complainant. These instances did not raise question of public order as the acts complained of were directed against particular individuals which did not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility. The acts did not cause di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 582/2004, 592/2004, 594/2004, 598/2004, 601/2004 and 602/2004 and a bail application was moved before the Principal Sessions Court in Crl. M.P. No. 11163/2004 in Central Crime Branch Crime No. 582/2004 and the same was dismissed on 17.11.2004. Further a bail application was moved before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in Crl. O.P. No. 37011/2004 in Central Crime Branch Crime No. 582/2004 and the same was withdrawn on 3.12.2004. He has not moved any bail subsequently. However, there is imminent possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application before the Principal Sessions Court or Hon'ble High Court since in similar cases bails are granted by the Principal Session Court after a lapse of time. If he comes out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntive detention and should be used with great deal of circumspection. There must be awareness of the facts necessitating preventive custody of a person for social defence. If a man is in custody and there is no imminent possibility of his being released, the power of preventive detention should not be exercised. In the instant case when the actual order of detention was served upon the detenu, the detenu was in jail. There is no indication that this factor or the question that the said detenu might be released or that there was such a possibility of his release, was taken into consideration by the detaining authority properly and seriously before the service of the order. A bald statement is merely an ipse dixit of the officer. If there wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aradharaj v. State of T.N. and Anr. 2002CriLJ4089 ; Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Govt. through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. 2001CriLJ474 ; Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the NCT of Delhi and Ors. and Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and Ors. 1991CriLJ3291 . 9. It is not necessary for us to notice all the decisions cited before us because we find that the principle enunciated by this Court in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate , Burdwan and Anr. (supra) Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar and Ors. (supra) Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and Anr. (supra) have been applied to the facts and circumstances of the cases cited before us by Shri Tulsi. The principle is well settled and all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on bail and two: that after he was so released the appellant would indulge in smuggling activities. The detaining authority noted that the appellant was in custody when the order of detention was passed. But the detaining authority said that bail is normally granted in such cases . When in fact the five applications filed by the appellant for bail had been rejected by the Courts (indicating that this was not a 'normal' case), on what material did the detaining authority conclude that there was imminent possibility that the appellant would come out on bail? The fact that the appellant was subsequently released on bail by the High Court could not have been foretold. As matters in fact stood when the order of detention was passed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
