Holding

The detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, based on material showing a likelihood of bail, is sufficient under the Act and is not subject to interference, so the High Court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition was justified.

Summary

The appellant, A. Geetha, challenged the preventive detention of her husband under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, alleging that the detaining authority failed to consider a representation and that the likelihood of his release on bail was remote because of an NDPS case. The High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, holding that the bail likelihood could not be said to be remote without details of the seized narcotics. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, based on material indicating a likelihood of bail, is sufficient and not subject to judicial interference, and that the High Court was correct in rejecting the petition. The Court also found that all representations were duly placed before the Advisory Board and considered. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the detention order.

Issues considered

Whether the detaining authority's satisfaction that the detainee is likely to be released on bail satisfies the requirement under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act.
Whether the High Court erred in holding that the possibility of bail was remote due to the pending NDPS case.
Whether the representation filed on 25 September 2005 was duly considered before the Advisory Board.
Whether the order of preventive detention is valid under the Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

preventive detentionbail likelihoodimmoral traffichabeas corpusrepresentationadvisory boardNDPS ActSection 366 IPC

Judgment

A A.GEETHA
• (T::-

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
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982-Sections 3(2), 3(1),
c 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
detenu being released on bail-That is subjective satisfaction based on
E 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 ATE 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.
F
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.
G
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.
H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Leave granted.

Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a
B
Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus Writ
Petition filed by A. Geetha wife of Anandaraj @Anand @ Anandan, (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Detenu'). The aforesaid detenu was detained under Section
3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum
C Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short the 'Act'). The order was
passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No. 175 of 2005 for alleged
commission ofoffences under Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of the Act
and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the '!PC'). The
allegation against the detenu was that on 5.9.2005 at about 17.15 hours the
D Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded on rounds to watch whether any
prostitution activity was going on at Vadapalani, Arcot Road, Chennai City.
When he was so proceeding near Avichi School, he noticed that the detenu
was sitting in a red colour Maruti car and doing prostitution business. The
detaining authority took note of three other adverse cases wherein the detenu
was involved in prostitution business. Offences as noted above related to
E keeping a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution, procuring, inducing
for the sake of prostitution detaining women in premises where prostitution
is carrying on and doing prostitution in the vicinity of public place and
abducting women for prostitution which were punishable under the Act and
IPC. The investigation revealed that the detenu used to get .young innocent
F poor girls, who because of poverty were in search of employment from State
of Andhra Pradesh under the guise of getting employment and induced and
forced them to indulge in prostitution business and took a house in Porur,
Chennai and kept the procured girls there and at times he took them to
different places in Chennai city in cars and forced them into prostitution and
earn huge money with the help of his associates. The investigation further
G disclosed that the detenu and his associates were doing such prostitution
business at various places and were spoiling lives of young persons.
Considering these activities to be prejudiclal to maintenance of public order
and being of the view that recourse to normal criminal law would not have
desired effect in preventing him from indulging in such activities which are
prejudicial to maintenance of public order, the detaining authority passed the
H
, A. GEETHA v. STATEOFTAMIL NADU (PASAYAT, J.] 727
impugned order. The detenu was declared as an 'immoral traffic offender' and A
was kept in custody at the Central Prison, Chennai. The order of detention
was assailed by filing a habeas corpus petition before the Madras High Court.
One of the major plank of the appellant's argument was that the representation
dated 25.9.2005 received by the detaining authority on 26.9.2005 had not been
considered though the Government approved the order of detention only on
2.10.2005. It was submitted that the said representation was neither placed B
before the Advisory Board nor the Government and therefore the ultimate
order passed by the detaining authority is liable to be set aside. The State
with reference to the records produced contended that all the six representations
submitted by the detenu and/or his relatives were placed before the Advisory
Board as well as the Government and all of them were duly considered. It was C
also stated that even the pre-detention representation dated 15.9.2005 was
duly considered. The High Court verified the recor~s and came to the
conclusion that all the representations were placed before the Advisory
Board as well as before the Government, were duly considered and rejected.
It was pointed out that no new point was urged in the representation dated
25.9.2005 copy of which was annexed, even if it is accepted for the sake of D
argument that such a representation was made and it was held that since all
the representations were duly con~idered, the detenu was in no way prejudiced.
The High Court further found no substance in the plea that one of the
adverse cases related to an offence punishable under Section 22 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the 'NDPS E
Act') and since the same was more grievous offence, the possibility of
coming out of bail was removed.

High Court noticed that the punishment under the NDPS Act depends
upon the quantity of the material seized and in the absence of any detail$
being furnished it cannot be said that possibility of coming out of bail was F
remote.

It was pointed out by learned counsel for the State that offence
punishable under Section 366 IPC is also graver in nature and liable for
imprisonment up to seven years and fine and therefore the High Court held
that the detaining authority was well within his power in describing the G
detenu an 'immoral traffic offender' and detaining him on grounds stated. The
High Court found substance in the conclusion of the detaining authority that
the detenu was not only spoiling young innocent boys and girls but his
activities were paving way to sexual diseases in an epidemic proposition
which will effect maintenance of public order and health. Accordingly the writ H
..
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A petition was dismissed.
After the first writ petition was dismissed a second Habeas Corpus
Petition was filed where the same order of detention was challenged. The only
ground urged in support of the second petition was that the order of rejection
was passed on 2.10.2005 and the same was served on 6.10.2005. The High
B Court noticed that this plea was available to be urged in the first writ petition
and it having not been done the order of detention was not vulnerable. The
High Court referred to some earlier judgments rendered by two different •
Benches and held that the second petition, on the self same grounds and
grounds which could have been urged, was not maintainable.

c In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that tbe bail application was rejected on 17.9.2005 and the order of detention
was passed on 21.9.2005. It was submitted that there was no scope for
observing that there was likelihood of release. Further, one of the
representations was not dealt with.
D In support of the order of detention and the order of the High Court,
learned counsel for the State submitted that it is fairly well settled that it is
the impact of an act and not the number of acts which determine whether the
act can be relatable to public order or not. In the instant case, the scenario
as described in the grounds of detention clearly shows that the acts committed
E by the detenu were of such intensity that the moral fibre of the community
was disturbed. Prostitution with the likelihood of spread of sexual disease on
a huge scale was imminent. Therefore, according to him, the detenu has
rightly been detained.

By way of additional affidavit the second respondent i.e. Commissioner
F of Police, Chennai has placed on record a letter dated 4.1.2006, in respect of
the representations of the appellant indicating the details, the representations
received and dealt with.

It may be noted that the conclusions about imminent possibility of
release on bail are under challenge.
G
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
H conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipse-dixit of
A. GEETHA v. STATE OFT AMIL NADU [PASA YAT,J.] 729
,
the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining A
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 B
in similar cases orders granting bail are passed by various courts. Appellant
has not disputed correctness of this statement. Strong reliance was placed by
learned counsel for the appellant on Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
and Anr., [2002] 7 SCC 129. The factual scenario in that case was entirely
different. In fact, ·five bail applications filed had been already rejected. In that
background this Court observed that it was not "normal" case. The High C
Court was justified in rejecting the stand of the appellant. [See: Ibrahim
Nazeer v. State a/Tamil Nadu and Anr., JT (2006) 6 SC 228 and Senthamilselvi
v. State of TN. and Anr., [2006] 5 SCC 676].

Further the second respondent has filed an additional affidavit indicating
that on verification of the registered post register for central zorie, it has been D
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.

B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.