REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).576 of 2011
REKHA Petitioner (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF T.NADU TR.SEC.TO GOVT.& ANR Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(Crl) NO. 1859 of 2011
SLP(Crl) NO. 2237 of 2011
SLP(Crl) NO. 540 of 2011
SLP(Crl) NO. 578 of 2011
SLP(Crl) NO. 580 of 2011
SLP(Crl) NO. 584 of 2011
SLP(Crl) NO. 676 of 2011
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.
Leave granted.
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.
:1:
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.
:2:
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.
:3:
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.
………………….J.
(MARKANDEY KATJU)
………………….J.
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 15, 2011.
:4: