Rekha Vs State of
Tamil Nadu TR. SEC. To Govt.& ANR
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel
for the appearing parties.
These Appeals have been
filed against the impugned common judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 23.12.2010.
The facts have been stated in the impugned judgment and hence we are not
repeating the same here. Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel appearing for some of
the appellants in these Appeals, submitted that since no bail application was pending
when the detention order in question under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention
of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act,
1982 was passed, hence the detention order in question was illegal as the
appellant was already in jail in a criminal case on the same facts. Hence,
there was no likelihood of his release.
It appears that there
is some conflict of opinion on the aforesaid point. Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel,
has relied on judgments of this Court in T.V. Sravanan alias S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar
Chaturvedi Vs. State through Secretary and Anr., (2006) 2 SCC 664; A. Shanthi (Smt.)
Vs. Govt. of T.N. and Ors., (2006) 9 SCC 711; and Rajesh Gulati Vs. Govt. of NCT
of Delhi and Anr. (2002) 7 SCC 129, wherein it was held that if no bail application
was pending and the detenue was already, in fact, in jail in a criminal case,
the detention order under the preventive detention is illegal.
On the other hand, Mr.
Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, has relied
on the judgments of this Court in A. Geetha Vs. State of T.N. And Anr. (2006) 7
SCC 603; and Ibrahim Nazeer Vs. State of T.N. and Anr., (2006) 6 SCC 64, wherein
it has been held that even if no bail application is pending but if in similar
cases bail has been granted, then this is a good ground for the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority to pass the detention order.
Mr. K.K. Mani, learned
counsel, has, however, submitted that in the decisions cited by him it was mentioned
in the detention order that in similar cases bail had been granted. Despite this
the detention order has been held to be illegal.
There seems to be
conflict between the decisions cited by Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel, and the
decisions cited by Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel. Hence, in our
opinion, the matter should be considered by a larger bench for resolving this
difference of opinion.
Let the papers of
these Appeals be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for
constituting a larger bench. Since the period of detention is expiring on 17.04.2011,
we would request Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger bench
at the earliest otherwise these Appeals would become infructuous.
Any prayer for temporary
relief may be made before the larger bench.
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)