RAJESH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu, challenges the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the second respondent herein in Memo No.160/BDFGISSV/2009, whereby an order of detention came to be passed against the detenu Jagan @ Jagadeesan under the Act 14 of 1982, after terming him as "Goonda".

(2.) This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.

(3.) It is not in controversy that on the recommendation made by the sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in ten adverse cases viz. (i) M.7 Manali New Town police station Crime No.216 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (ii) M.3 Puzhal police station Crime No.511 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (iii) Chengalpet Taluk Town police station Crime No.809 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (iv) M.3 Puzhal police station Crime No.695 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (v) M.5 Ennore police station Crime No.566 of 2009 for the offences under Section 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (vi) M.8 Sathangadu police station Crime No.472 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (vii) M.6 Manali police station Crime No.421 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (viii) M.8 Sathangadu police station Crime No.476 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (ix) M.2 M.M. Colony police station Crime No.368 of 2009 for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (x) M.4 Red Hills police station Cr.No.879 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and also a ground case in Crime No.278 of 2009 registered by M-7 Manali New Town police station for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and on scrutiny of materials, the Detaining Authority, after recording subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the detention order.