A.GEETHA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 04-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
(T::-
A 
A.GEETHA 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 4, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
" 
Preventive Detention-Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities 
of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic 
c 
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982-Sections 3(2), 3(1), 
4(1), 5(1), 6(1) and 7(/)-Detention for prevention of "immoral traffic"-
Detention challenged on ground that there was remote likelihood of the 
detenu being released on bail as one of the adverse cases against him related 
to a grievous offence under the NDPS Act-Held: Whether prayer for bail 
would be accepted depends on circumstances of each case-No hard and fast 
D rule can be applied-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-Conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail however cannot 
be ipse-dixit of the detaining authority-On the basis of materials before him, 
the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there was likelihood of 
E 
detenu being released on bail-That is subjective satisfaction based on 
materials-Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with-Penal 
Code, 1860-Section 366, 
The husband of Appellant was detained under Section 3(2) of the Tamil 
Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, 
F Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and 
Video Pirates Act, 1982 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 
3(1), 4(1), 5(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of the Act and Section 366, IPC. lt was alleged 
,. 
that the detenu was involved in prostitution business at various places and 
was spoiling lives of young persons. Considering these activities to be 
prejudicial to maintenance of public order, the detaining authority passed the 
G impugned detention order declaring the husband of Appellant as an 'immoral 
traffic offender'. 
Appellant challenged the order of detention by filing a Habeas Corpus 
petition before the High Court inter a/ia on the ground that there was remote 
.. 
H 
724 
, 
A. GE ETHA v. ST A TE OFT AMIL NADU 
725 
likelihood of the detenu being released on bail as one of the adverse cases A 
against him related to a grievous offence, punishable under S.22 of the 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. High Court however 
dismissed the petition holding that punishment under the NDPS Act depends 
upon the quantity of the material seized and in absence of any details, the 
possibility of the detenu coming out on bail cannot be said to be remote. 
B 
In appeal to this Court the conclusions of High Court regarding 
imminent possibility of release of Appellant on bail are under challenge. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on C 
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 D 
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 E 
disputed correctness of this statement. The High Court was justified in 
rejecting the stand of the appellant. 1728-G-H; 729-A-D) 
Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., 12002) 7 SCC 129, 
distinguished. 
Ibrahim Nazeer v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., JT (2006) 6 SC 228 
and Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N. and Anr., 12006) 5 SCC 676, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 911 of 
2006. 
From the Judgments and Orders dated 11.2.2006 in H.C.P. No. 1117/2005 
and dated 22.3.2006 in H.C.P. No. 276/2006 of the High Court of Judicature at 
Madras. 
K.K. Mani for the Appellant. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
726 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was deli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.