9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. 2. Grounds of detention based on multiple criminal cases against the appellant. 3. Challenge regarding the impact on public order. 4. Justification for detention despite the appellant being in custody. 5. Application of legal principles on preventive detention in the case. Issue 1: Appeal against detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The appellant appealed against the High Court's decision upholding his detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The detaining authority found the appellant to be a 'goonda' under the Act and detained him to prevent him from engaging in activities prejudicial to public order. The detention order was passed on December 15, 2004. Issue 2: Grounds of detention based on multiple criminal cases against the appellant. The appellant's detention was based on seven criminal cases where he was accused of exploiting followers, including sexually exploiting individuals and cheating them financially under false pretenses. The detaining authority found these activities to be detrimental to public order, justifying the detention under the Act. Issue 3: Challenge regarding the impact on public order. The appellant argued that the allegations against him pertained to individual cases and did not disturb public order significantly. However, the High Court upheld the detention, stating that the activities attributed to the appellant were shocking and illegal, posing a threat to public order. The High Court affirmed the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. Issue 4: Justification for detention despite the appellant being in custody. The appellant's counsel contended that the appellant was already in custody when the detention order was issued, with no imminent chance of bail. Despite this, the detaining authority passed the detention order based on the possibility of the appellant seeking bail in the future. The Supreme Court held that preventive detention should not be exercised when there is no imminent chance of release from custody. Issue 5: Application of legal principles on preventive detention in the case. The Supreme Court referred to past judgments emphasizing that preventive detention should be used in exceptional cases and with caution. The Court highlighted the need for reliable material to justify detention, especially when the individual is already in custody. The Court found that in this case, there was no substantial evidence to support the detaining authority's belief that the appellant would seek bail imminently, leading to the Court ordering the appellant's release on December 13, 2005. This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the Supreme Court's decision.
|
