M A BADRUDEEN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Thiru. B. Thameen Ansari, son of the petitioner herein, has been detained by virtue of the detention order dated 3.12.2002 passed by the second respondent under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention first respondent partnership firm Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Act14 of 1982), which is impugned in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows :- The detenu is aged 36 years. He is running an automobile repair workshop in the name of 'Ajmer Haaja Diesel Mechanic' and an automobile spare parts shop in the name and style of 'Royal Auto Parts' at West Tambaram, Chennai employing more than ten workers. The detenu has been in this business for over 25 years. He is an income tax assessee and happens to be the Founder President of the Light and Heavy Vechiles Repairers Welfare Association. According to the petitioner, the detenu was woken up during the midnight on 16.11.2002/17.11.2002 and was taken by the third respondent/Inspector of Police herein on the plea that he needed to be enquired. The detenu, mistaking that he was being taken for attending the repair work of their vehicle, went with them in a casual dress of lungi and banian and at the instance of the police, he wore his shirt and carried his mobile cellular phone connected with Airtel with Number 98400-53633. After the detenu left with the police party, the petitioner, with the assistance of one M. Ravi, who is residing in the same locality as a car dealer, appraised him of the incident and tried to follow the police party in their Maruthi Omni Van bearing Registration Number TMB-8851. When they reached Chengalpet Prohibition Enforcement Wing at about 3 am, they found the police station locked from outside and the police jeep in which the Inspector came to his house was found parked nearby, but nobody answered their call and therefore, they returned home believing that his son would be inside the police station. On the next day morning, i.e., 17.11.2002, the petitioner went to the same police station in the Maruthi Van along with his son's friends M. Ravi, S. Kader Jalani and his daughter-in-law and they found the detenu beaten up all over his body with visible swelling marks. They could not talk to him as they could only see him from a distance.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the Inspector of Police called his nephew inside and informed him that they must pay him a sum of Rs.1 lakh, failing which the detenu would be implicate in a serious criminal case or he would be detained under the Goonda's Act. They were given 24 hours to express their willingness and bring a Toyoto Qualis Van on the next day. On 18.11.2002, they again went the police station and waited for more than two hours for the arrival of the Inspector. At about 2 pm, they found their Maruthi Omni Van bearing Registration Number TMB-8851 being driven by one Vivek @ Vivekanandan, a known auto rickshaw driver and their Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TSI-153 being driven by a constable with a pillion and brought into the police station. The Inspector is said to have informed the petitioner's nephew reiterating his earlier demand of Rs.1 lakh and came along with them to get the Battery Charger of the cellphone of the detenu, which was taken by the Inspector from the detenu on 17.11.2002. The petitioner had decided not to meet the illegal demand since the detenu was innocent and a law abiding citizen and also, if they pay the ransom as demanded, it would only be a temporary relief and that there was every likelihood of being harassed in future for similar illegal gratifications. As a result, the detenu was mercilessly beaten up and the time to pay the money was further extended till 4 pm on 19.11.2002. Ultimately, the petitioner understood that at 6 pm on 19.11.2002, the third respondent prepared the alleged seizure mahazar as though the detenu had transported rectified spirit and a document of arrest was also prepared showing that the detenu was arrested only on 19.11.2002 at 2 pm. Thereafter, the third respondent produced the detenu before the Magistrate at 7.25 pm on 19.11.2002, who remanded the detenu to judicial custody. The petitioner understood that the detenu was kept at the gate of the Magistrate's residence and the order of remand was obtained inside the Magistrate's residence and though the detenu was undergoing unbearable pain and could not even stand, there was no scope for his complaining to the Magistrate as to the illegal detention and torture meted out to the detenu.