MAHEEMA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife of the detenu Murugesan is the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition and she has challenged the order of detention dated 22.6.2011 made in BDFGISSV No.27/2011 passed by the second respondent.

(2.) THE detaining authority relied on three adverse cases, namely (1) Crime No.227/2011, (2) Crime No.256/2011 on the file of M-1, Madhavaram Police Station and (3) Crime No.190/2011, on the file of M-2, Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station and also the ground case in Crime No.259/2011, on the file of M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 336, 394, 397 and 506(ii) IPC, to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu is a "Goonda" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

(3.) THERE is no controversy with regard to the date of arrest of the detenu in the ground case in Crime No.259/2011 and his initial remand on 5.5.2011 and the subsequent remand till 16.6.2011. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the observation in the grounds of detention that the remand was extended till 30.6.2011, is not supported by material. The document to which our attention was drawn by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as the material for the said observation, is found in page 87 of the booklet and the same is sought to be interpreted as an order extending the remand of the detenu till 30.6.2011. The order dated 16.6.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvetriyur reads as follows: