R.Ravichandran vs M.Babu Muthu Meeran on 11 September, 2006
14. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Appeal (Crl.) No.1176 of 2005 dated 16.02.2006 (T.V. Saravanan @ S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi) and the Division Bench decision of this Court in Krishnaswamy Govindan vs. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and others reported in 2004 M.L.J. (Crl.) 560 contended that in view of the fact that the detenus have not filed any bail application and no such application is pending on the date of passing of the detention orders, the conclusion arrived at by the authority is nothing but ipse dixit, and hence the orders of detention get vitiated. In the light of the said contention, we verified the factual position in the case before the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court and also the case on hand. It is true that both the detenus have not filed bail applications seeking bail on the date of passing of the detention orders. However, it cannot be ruled out that if the detenus make applications for bail, it cannot be claimed that the same will not be considered at any point of time.