RANI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Wife of the detenu is the petitioner herein. The detenu has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) on the basis of three adverse cases first one under section 307 IPC, second one under sections 285, 286 and 506(ii) IPC and sections 3, 5(A) of Explosive Substance Act and the third one under sections 147, 148, 452, 342, 365, 392, 397, 307 and 506(ii) IPC and section 3(1) of TNPP(DL) Act, 1992 apart from the ground case in crime No.178 of 2003.

(2.) On 29.3.2003, at 23.30 hours, the complainant Tmt.Suseela appeared before the Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Station and gave a statement that she and her elder sister were the wives of late Gandhi Ravi, that her elder sister had got a son and a daughter and she got a son that after the death of her husband, her elder sister also died and she was maintaining the children with the support of Dhanasekaran, the brother of her late husband that whileso, Balaiyan murdered one Kannaiyan of Aathur Village and the that the detenu is the son of the said Kannaiyan and he was in Cuddalore Jail at that time that her in law Dhanasekaran was a close friend of the said Balaiya who masterminded the murder of the father of the detenu and hence, the detenu who had since been released from jail was in enmity with Dhanasekaran and on that account, Dhanasekaran complained to her that the detenu had quarrelled with him and whileso, on 29.3.2003 at 9.00 pm when she, her children and Dhanasekaran were inside the house, the detenu along with three other persons all with aruval came to their house, forcibly entered into the house and stating that Dhanasekaran helped to eliminate his father, attacked him with aruval. Dhanasekar sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, the detenu left the place. This was registered in crime No.178/2003.

(3.) On the basis of the materials placed before the detaining authority, the detaining authority arrived at subjective satisfaction that the detention of the detenu is necessary for maintenance of public order and therefore, the order of detention was passed on 3.4.2003. That detention order is challenged in the writ petition.