Since the order of detention was companying to an end on December 14, 2005 we heard the companynsel for the parties and while allowing the appeal set aside the order of detention and directed the release of the appellant.
Further a bail application was moved before the Honble High Court, Madras in Crl.
The order of detention was passed on December 15, 2004 i.e. merely 12 days after the dismissal of the bail application by the High Court.
We hereby give the reasons for our order made on December 13, 2005.
The detaining authority finding the appellant to be a goonda under the provisions of the Act and there being a companypelling 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.
The grounds of detention disclose that there were as many as 7 cases registered against the appellant.
The detaining authority numbericed that the appellant had number moved any bail application subsequently but it went on to state that there was imminent possibility of appellants companying out on bail by filing another bail application before the Sessions Court or the High Court since in similar cases bails are granted by the Sessions Court after a lapse of time.
582/2004 and the same was dismissed on 17.11.2004.
582/2004 and the same was withdrawn on 3.12.2004.
If he companyes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
37011/2004 in Central Crime Branch Crime No.
The appellant had moved another bail application before the High Court which was withdrawn on December 3, 2004.
O.P. No.
However, there is imminent possibility of his companying out on bail by filing another bail application before the Principal Sessions Court or Honble High Court since in similar cases bails are granted by the Principal Session Court after a lapse of time.
The bail applications moved by the appellant had been rejected by the Courts and there was numbermaterial whatsoever to apprehend that he was likely to move a bail application or that there was imminent possibility of the prayer for bail being granted.
He has number moved any bail subsequently.
The appellant was detained by an order passed in exercise of powers companyferred by sub section 1 of Section 3 of the Act on the ground that he was a goonda within the meaning of the Act and that there was a companypelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.
P. SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Chennai in H.C.P. No.
34 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the habeas companypus petition filed 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 appeal came up for hearing before us on December 13, 2005.
