2006 (9) TMI 502 - SC - Customs

Whether judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by A. Geetha wife of Anandaraj @ Anand @Anandan,( Detenu ) was correct? Held that - 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 there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with. On the facts of the case, the detaining authority has indicated as to why he was of the opinion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. It has been clearly stated that in similar cases orders granting bail are passed by various courts. Appellant has not disputed correctness of this statement. As the second respondent has filed an additional affidavit indicating that on verification of the registered post register for central zone, it has been noticed that no representation either from the detenu or on his behalf was received through registered post between 25.9.2005 and 30.9.2005. In view of the aforesaid, we find no substance in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of judgment dismissing Habeas Corpus Writ Petition under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982.
2. Consideration of representations by the detaining authority.
3. Validity of detention on the grounds of being an 'immoral traffic offender'.
4. Challenge of a second Habeas Corpus Petition based on the timing of the order of rejection.
5. Likelihood of release on bail and impact on detention.

Issue 1: Legality of judgment dismissing Habeas Corpus Writ Petition:
The appellant challenged the judgment of the Madras High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The detenu was detained for alleged offences related to prostitution activities, leading to the order of detention. The High Court upheld the detention, considering the detenu's activities as prejudicial to public order and health, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Issue 2: Consideration of representations by the detaining authority:
The appellant argued that the representation dated 25.9.2005 was not considered before approving the detention order on 2.10.2005. However, the State contended that all representations were duly placed before the Advisory Board and the Government, and were considered. The High Court verified the records and found that all representations were duly considered, leading to the rejection of this ground for setting aside the detention order.

Issue 3: Validity of detention as an 'immoral traffic offender':
The detaining authority described the detenu as an 'immoral traffic offender' based on the activities of inducing young girls into prostitution, which were deemed prejudicial to public order and health. The High Court upheld the detention, considering the seriousness of the offences committed by the detenu and their impact on society.

Issue 4: Challenge of a second Habeas Corpus Petition:
A second Habeas Corpus Petition was filed challenging the same detention order, citing the timing of the order of rejection. The High Court held that since this ground could have been raised in the first petition and was not, the detention order was not vulnerable. Previous judgments were referred to, emphasizing that the second petition was not maintainable on the same grounds as the first petition.

Issue 5: Likelihood of release on bail and impact on detention:
The detaining authority considered the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail, based on the nature of the offences committed and the impact on public order. The High Court upheld the detention, stating that the intensity of the detenu's acts disturbed the moral fabric of society, justifying the detention. The detenu's argument regarding the rejection of a bail application was countered by the State, emphasizing the seriousness of the detenu's actions and the potential spread of sexual diseases due to prostitution activities.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substance in the arguments presented and upholding the legality of the detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982.