AMUTHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amutha, mother of the detenus namely Veeramani and Sivakumar, aged about 27 and 30 years respectively, has filed H.C.P. (MD).Nos.1331 and 1336/2019 assailing the impugned detention orders, passed by the 2nd Respondent in P.D.O.Nos.80 and 79/2019 dated 21.11.2019 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of detenus by name Veeramani and Sivakumar, S/o.Minikanu, who are detained as "Goonda" at Trichirappalli Central Prison, before this Court and set them at liberty.

(2.) Since the detenus/A-3 and A-2 in H.C.P.(MD).Nos.1331 and 1336/2019 are brothers and the detenu/A-1 in H.C.P.(MD).No.1340/2019 is the paternal uncle of the detenus/A-3 and A-2 in H.C.P.(MD).Nos.1331 and 1336/2019, at request of both parties, all the three petitions are taken up together.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, assailing the impugned detention orders, only on the ground of registration of a solitary ground case in Cr.No.104/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 I.P.C against all the detenus, argued that the Detaining Authority ought not to have resorted to Act 14 of 1982 to brand the petitioners as "Goondas" under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982, merely for the reason that they have involved in Cr.No.104/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 I.P.C. After registration of Cr.No. 104/2019 by the Udayalipatti Police Station, they were arrested on 26.10.2019 and subsequently, remanded into judicial custody and thereafter, when a bail application was moved in Cr.M.P.No.3183/2019 by Sivakumar/A-2 and Veeramani/A-3, the same was also dismissed on 13.11.2019 and Maruthaiah/A-1 has not filed any bail application at all. While the matter stands as above, the Detaining Authority, by stating that 'resource to the normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing the detenus from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order', have wrongly passed the impugned detention order. When there is a similar case, where bail has been granted to a similarly placed accused, the Detaining Authority, without dealing with the similar case, wrongly resorted to Act 14 of 1982 to brand the detenus as 'Goondas'.