Rekha vs State Of T.Nadu Tr.Sec.To Govt.& Anr

The detenu in this Appeal Ramakrishnan (whose wife Rekha has filed this Appeal) has been detained by a detention order dated 08.04.2010 passed under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic :1: Offenders, Sand Offenders, and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, on the allegation that he was selling expired drugs after tampering with the labels and printing fresh labels showing them as non-expired drugs. The habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of the detenu before the Madras High Court challenging the said detention order has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 23.12.2010. Hence, this Appeal.

Whereas I, T. Rajendran, IPS., Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, is satisfied that the person known as Tr. Ramakrishnan, male aged 35, S/O Devaraj, No. 82-B, South Mada Veethi, Villivakkam, Chennai-49 is a Drug Offender as contemplated under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make the following order.

In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most courts normally grant bail on this ground. However, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, otherwise the bald statement of the authority cannot be believed.

Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel, further submitted that we are taking an over technical view of the matter, and we should not interfere with the preventive detention orders passed in cases where serious crimes have been committed. We do not agree.

To prevent misuse of this potentially dangerous power the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed and meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however, technical, is, in our opinion, mandatory and vital.

:18:

Procedural rights are not based on sentimental concerns for the detenu. The procedural safeguards are not :19: devised to coddle criminals or provide technical loopholes through which dangerous persons escape the consequences of their acts. They are basically society's assurances that the authorities will behave properly within rules distilled from long centuries of concrete experiences.

For the reasons given above, this Appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the impugned detention order is quashed. However, we make it clear that this will not affect the criminal cases pending against the alleged accused.

:20:

We further direct that the concerned detenu in this Appeal shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Accordingly, for the reasons given in the Order passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 755 OF 2011, these Appeals are allowed, the impugned common order is set aside and the impugned detention orders are quashed. However, we make it clear that this will not affect the criminal cases pending against the alleged accused persons.

We further direct that the concerned detenus in these Appeals shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.