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: