MUTHAZHAGI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sundaravel, son of Elumalai, the husband of the petitioner, has been detained as a goonda under Act 14/1982 by virtue of the order passed by the second respondent herein in his Memo no.146/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 08.07.2009.

(2.) To arrive at a satisfaction that the detenu was a goonda and his presence at large would be detrimental to the maintenance of public order and peace, the detaining authority has referred to: i) Cr.No.312/2009 on the file of D.4, Zam Bazaar Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC relating to an occurrence that allegedly took place on 14.06.2009, ii) Cr.No.191/2009 on the file of D.6 Anna Square Police station registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 392 and 506(ii) IPC relating to an occurrence that allegedly took place on 24.06.2009 and iii) Cr.No.685/2009 on the file of D.2 Anna Salai police station registered for offences punishable under sections 341, 384 and 506(ii) IPC relating to an occurrence that allegedly took place on 30.06.2009 as the adverse cases and Cr.No.347/2009 registered on the file of D.4, Zam Bazaar police station for alleged offences punishable under sections 341, 307, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC as the ground case.

(3.) The petitioner, who is none other than the wife of the detenu Sundaravel, has come forward with the present habeas corpus petition challenging the said order of detention on several grounds set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Among other grounds, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the grounds of 1) non-application of mind by the detaining authority regarding the discrepancy found in the records as to whether the intimation by telegram to the relative of the detenu soonafter arrest was given first in point of time to be followed by the remand order or vice versa and 2) the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case and the third adverse case was not based on cogent materials.