REKHA versus STATE OF T. NADU TR. SEC. TO GOVT. & ANR

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 885 · Decided: 15-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 3 S.C.R. 885 
REKHA 
v. 
STATE OF T. NADU TR. SEC. TO GOVT. & ANR .. 
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No . 576 of 2011) 
MARCH 15, 2011 
. [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of 
Bottleggers, Drug- Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, 
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, and Slum C 
Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 - s. 3 - Detention order 
under- Legality of- Conflict of opinion on the point that since 
no bail application was pending when the detention order u/ 
s. 3 was passed, hence, the detention order was illegal as the 
detenue was already in jail in a criminal case on the same D 
facts - Matter referred to larger Bench. 
T. V. Sravanan alias S.A./l 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 sec E 
711; Rajesh Gulati vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (2002) 
7 SCC 129; A. Geetha vs.State of T.N. and Anr. (2006) 7. 
SCC 603; Ibrahim Nazeer vs. State ofT.N. and Anr. (2006) 6 
sec 64 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
t2006) 2 sec 664 
Referred to. 
Para 7 
(2006) 9 sec 111 
Referred to. 
Para 7 
(2002) 1 sec 129 
Referred to. 
Para 7 
· (2006) 1 sec 603 
Referred to. 
Para 8 
(2006) 6 sec 64 
Referred to. 
Para 8 
885 
F 
G 
H 
886 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20111 3 s.c.f{. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
B 
Petition (Crl.) No(s).576 of 2011 
From the Judgment & Order dated 23.12.2010 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in HCP No. 792 of 2010. 
WITH 
SLP(Crl) NO. 1859 of 2011, 2237 of 2011, 540 of 2011, 578 
of 2011, 580 of 2011, 584 of 2011, 676 of 2011 
c 
K.V. Viswanathan, K.K. Mani, Abhishek Krishna, Mayur R. 
Shah, S. J. Aristotle, Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Bob, Prabhu 
Ramasubramanian, Priya, Aristotle, V.G. Pragasam, V. 
Mohana, Abhishek K., Vijay Prashant, G. Ananda Selvam, 
Andrew Jaimon, A. Santha, Kumaran, Ravindra Keshavrao 
0 Adsure, Guru Krishna Kumar, Akshat Hansaria, Mamta 
Chandel and Abhay Kumar for the petitioner. 
Altaf Ahmed, Promila, S. Thananjayam for the 
Respondents. 
E 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties. 
F 
Leave granted. 
These Appeals have been filed against the impugned 
common judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 
23.12.2010. 
G 
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 
H application was pending when the detention order in question 
REKHA v. STATE OF T. NADU TR. SEC. TO GOVT. 887 
& ANR. 
under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous 
A 
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 
B 
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 
C 
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 sec 129, wherein it was held 
D 
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 
E 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.