AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 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. The appeal came up for hearing before us on December 13, 2005. Since the order of detention was coming to an end on December 14, 2005 we heard the counsel for the parties and while allowing the appeal set aside the order of detention and directed the release of the appellant. We ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 disturbance of the public order at all. The High Court negatived the contention and held that the grounds of detention disclose that the appellant had indulged in shocking and illegal activities which would be detrimenta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....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 O.P. No. 37011/2004 in Central Crime Branch Crime No. 582/2004 and the same was withdrawn on 3.12.2004.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 on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order." The question is whether on the basis of such material, an order of detention was justified, even though the appellant was in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 were cogent materials for thinking that the detenu might be released then these should have been made apparent. Eternal vigilance on the part of the authority charged with both law and order and public order is the price which the democr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd others : 1994 Supp (1) SCC 597 and Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik vs. Union of India and others : (1992) 1 SCC 1. 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 vs. District Magistrte, Burdwan and another (supra) Binod Singh vs. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar and others (supra) Kamarunnissa vs. Union of India and another (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 that has to be seen is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the tests laid down by this Court are satisfied. The order of detention itself notices the fact that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed. 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, the "normal" rule of release on bail had not been followed by the courts and it could not have been relied on by the detaining authority to be satisfied that the appellant would be released on bail. ....