DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking for quashing of an order made under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with orders issued by the Government on 18th January, 2002 under Section 3(2) of the Act. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Delhi. He does not know Tamil language nor any member of his family is conversant with the said language.

(2.) The detention of the petitioner is attacked on the ground that a solitary instance mentioned in the grounds of detention is not of such magnitude and intensity as to have the effect of disturbing the public order so as to pass an order under Section 3(1) of the Act; that the petitioner is already in judicial custody and is in jail as an under-trial prisoner and a mere possibility of his release on bail is not enough for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order; that the detention of the petitioner affects his right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and is also violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

(3.) In the return filed on behalf of the State, the Commissioner of Police submits that the petitioner came for adverse notice in three cases registered at various police stations, that is, in Crime No. 377/2002 under Section 379, IPC falling within the jurisdiction of Periyamedu Police Station, Crime No. 512/2002 under Section 379, IPC coming within the jurisdiction of Chennai Central Railway Station Police Station and Crime No. 332/2002 under Section 379, IPC coming within the jurisdiction of Tambaram Railway Police Station; that in the present case, he was found committing robbery of Rs. 1000/- from one Kumar at the point of knife and disturbing even tempo of life of the public; that after his arrest when he was examined, he admitted about the commission of these offences and was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Chennai and was thereafter lodged at the Central Prison, Chennai as an under-trial prisoner. The contention that the detention of the petitioner is based on the solitary instance is refuted on the basis that in addition to the ground disclosed in the order of detention there were three other cases registered at different Police Stations against the petitioner. The Commissioner of Police stated that he was found committing robbery from one Kumar at the point of knife and when the public rushed to apprehend him, he picked up stones and pelted the same against the public and created a scare affecting the even tempo of the life of the public and as such his activities would fall within the scope of Section2(f) of the Act and to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future he was detained under the Act; that though the petitioner was detained in prison, likelihood of his being released on bail was an imminent possibility enabling him to indulge in similar activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing the detenu from indulging in such activities.