2006 (9) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short the 'Act'). The order was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No. 175 of 2005 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of the Act and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The allegation against the detenu was that on 5.9.2005 at about 17.15 hours the Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded on rounds to watch whether any prostitution activity was going on at Vadapalani, Arcot Road, Chennai City. When he was so proceeding near Avichi School, he noticed that the detenu was s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned order. The detenu was declared as an 'immoral traffic offender' and was kept in custody at the Central Prison, Chennai. The order of detention was assailed by filing a habeas corpus petition before the Madras High Court. One of the major plank of the appellant's argument was that the representation dated 25.9.2005 received by the detaining authority on 26.9.2005 had not been considered though the Government approved the order of detention only on 2.10.2005. It was submitted that the said representation was neither placed before the Advisory Board nor the Government and therefore the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority is liable to be set aside. The State with reference to the records produced contended that all ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and fine and therefore the High Court held that the detaining authority was well within his power in describing the detenu an 'immoral traffic offender' and detaining him on grounds stated. The High Court found substance in the conclusion of the detaining authority that the detenu was not only spoiling young innocent boys and girls but his activities were paving way to sexual diseases in an epidemic proposition which will effect maintenance of public order and health. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. After the first writ petition was dismissed a second Habeas Corpus Petition was filed where the same order of detention was challenged. The only ground urged in support of the second petition was that the order of rejecti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on record a letter dated 4.1.2006, in respect of the representations of the appellant indicating the details, the representations received and dealt with. It may be noted that the conclusions about imminent possibility of release on bail are under challenge. It has to be noted that whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied. The only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipse-dixit of the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that ....