GIRIJA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three Habeas Corpus Petitions are connected and they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) HCP No.2174 of 2009 has been filed by the wife of the detenu Loghu @ Loganathan, who has been detained by the first respondent as a 'goonda' by his order dated 24.10.2009 made in his proceedings Memo No.108/BDFGISSV/2009. HCP No.2175 of 2009 has been filed by the wife of the detenu Vasanth, who has been detained by the first respondent as a 'goonda' by his order dated 24.10.2009 made in his proceedings Memo No.110/BDFGISSV/2009. HCP No.2176 of 2009 has been filed by the wife of the detenu Prabhu @ Pattuvari, who has been detained by the first respondent as a 'goonda' by his order dated 24.10.2009 made in his proceedings Memo No.109/BDFGISSV/2009.

(3.) In all the three cases of detention, the detaining authority has referred to two adverse cases, namely 1) Cr.No.18/2009 registered on the file of M.1 Madhavaram Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 75 of the City Police Act relating to an occurrence that allegedly took place on 23.01.2009, which resulted in the conviction of all the detenus with a fine of Rs.400/- each and 2) Cr.No.517/2009 registered on the file of the very same police station for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 379 IPC, which was subsequently altered into a case for offences punishable under Sections 341, 307 and 302 IPC relating to an occurrence that took place on 27.09.2009 and the ground case in Cr.No.520/2009 registered on the file of M.1 Madhavaram Police Station for alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC relating to an alleged occurrence that took place on 28.09.2009. Expressing subjective satisfaction that all the three detenus were habitually committing offences made punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code and that their presence at large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detaining authority, namely the first respondent has clamped the orders of detention impugned in these petitions. The detaining authority has also expressed his subjective satisfaction that though the detenus had not filed any bail application in the pending cases, namely the second adverse case and the ground case, there was real possibility of their coming out on bail by filing bail applications.