Manimekalai vs The State of Tamilnadu

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenu Vijayakumar, son of Veerasamy, as

the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu

Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum

Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

Challenging the abovesaid detention, the mother of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition, seeking a writ of

habeas, corpus to call for the records pertaining to the detention order passed against the detenu by the second respondent in

BDFGISSV.No.247 of 2007, dated 16.6.2007, set aside the same andto direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, now detained

at Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

3.1. The order of detention dated 16.6.2007 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No. 488 of 2007 for alleged commission of

offences under Sections 341, 336, 397 and 506(2) IPC, complaint of which was lodged by one Rajendran. According to Rajendran, on

27.5.2007, while he was proceeding to Kalashetra Road near the Pillaiyar Temple junction a share auto bearing Reg. No. TN 07 AE 8618

crossed him and stopped and eight persons, including the detenu were in it. Four of them got down from the share auto. The detenu and his

associate Arul inserted hands into the shirt pocket of the complainant and took away cell phone and cash of Rs. 200/- and threatened to kill him.

When the detenu and others got into auto and tried to escape, the complainant raised hue and cry and hearing that again accused mid his

associates got down from the auto and pelted stones on him. The public who were at the spot noticing the atrocious activities ran for safer places

out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. Based on the complaint given by him a case, as stated above, was registered and the detenu was

arrested.

3.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of the four adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz.,

i. Crime No. 73 of 2007 registered on the file of Thiruvanmiyur Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 392 and 397 of IPC with

reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 25.1.2007;

ii. Crime No. 438 of 2007 registered on the file of Thiruvanmiyur Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 392 and 397 of IPC

with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 11.5.2007;

iii. Crime No. 478 of 2007 registered on the file of Thiruvanmiyur Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC

with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 25.5.2007; and

iv. Crime No. 479 of 2007 registered on the file of Thiruvanmiyur Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC

with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 25.5.2007.

3.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the

impugned order.

Heard both sides. We have perused the materials produced before us.

The main contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the Special report dated 15.6.2007, the sponsoring authority

referred to four cases said to be pending against the detenu, viz., Crime Nos. 73 of 2007, 381 of 2007, 478 of 2007 and 479 of 2007, but there

is-no such Crime No. 381 of 2007 pending against him and the detaining authority has not applied its mind to the above fact by seeking

clarification of the same from the sponsoring authority before passing of the detention order.

Concededly, in the order of detention four adverse cases were sta\ed to be pending against the detenu, viz., Crime Nos. 73 of 2007, 438 of

2007, 478 of 2007 and 479 of 2007, but nowhere a reference is made to Crime No. 381 of 2007, which is stated to be pending against the

detenu as per the special report dated 15.6.2007. When there is such contradiction in the crime number referred to, the detaining authority ought

to have sought for clarification from the sponsoring authority. Non appreciation of the said vital fact vitiates the order of detention.

For the reason aforesaid, the detention order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. This petition is allowed. The order

of detention dated 16.6.2007 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required connection with any

other crime. No costs.