QUEEN MARY W/0 ETHIRAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of detention passed by the second respondent directing the detention of the detenu Eli @ Jayakumar is impugned in this Habeas Corpus Petition by the petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu.

(2.) THE second respondent herein has passed the impugned order, dated 18.4.2009, made In BDFGISSV No.24/2009, holding the detenu to be a goonda and expressing satisfaction that his presence at large will be detrimental to the maintenance of public order. To arrive at such a satisfaction, the Detaining Authority has relied on seven adverse cases, viz., (1) Crime No.335/2008 registered on the file of Pazhavanthangal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C., (2) Crime No.366/2008 registered on the file of Pazhavanthangal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C., (3) Crime No.363/2008 registered on the file of Pazhavanthangal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 427, 385, 506(ii) r/w Section 397, (4) Crime No.556/2008 registered on the file of Madipakkam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C., (5) Crime No.247/2009 registered on the file of Selaiyur Police Station for offence punishable under Section 379, I.P.C., (6) Crime No.88/2009 registered on the file of Chitlapakkam Police Station for offence punishable under Section 379, I.P.C., and (7) Crime No.187/2009 registered on the file of Chitlapakkam Police Station for offences punishable under Section 379 @ 392, I.P.C. and the ground case in Crime No.219/2009 on the file of Chitlapakkam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 392, 336, 427 and 506(ii), I.P.C.

(3.) WE have heard the argument advanced by Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State, on the above points raised by Mr. S. Swamidoss Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.