ELUMALAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai dated 9.9.2002 directing the detention of Tr.Arul Alex dubbing him to be a "Goonda" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

(2.) There are as many as 10 criminal cases mentioned against the accused by way of the adverse cases, while an incident dated 28.8.2002 has been relied upon as the incident for the ground case which has been instituted for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392 and 506(2) I.P.C. It is reported in the ground case that on 28.8.2002, the petitioner along with two others came near one Natarajan giving him a threat and snatched the wrist watch from Natarajan. While doing so, the detenu brandished an iron pipe and threatened that he will beat Natarajan and when the public gathered there because of the hue and cry raised by Natarajan, the detenu and the other two threw bottles from the nearby cool-drinks shop and hurled some against the public, which bottles fell on the road and broke into pieces. Because of this, the tranquility was disturbed. It is on this ground that generally the detention order came to be passed. While passing the detention order, the Detaining Authority also took into consideration the fact that Arul Alex is in remand and that there was imminent possibility that he might come out on bail for offences under Sections 341, 336, 392, 427 and 506 (2) I.P.C and that if he came out on bail, he would indulge in further activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Swamidoss Manokaran firstly stated that a very important document was not put before the Detaining Authority and the Detaining Authority has not considered the same. He pointed out that a bail application was made by the detenu on 3.9.2002 of which the notice was given to the Public Prosecutor and the bail order came to be actually passed on 6.9.2002. The learned counsel further states that in pursuance of the bail order granted by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate on 6.9.2002, the detenu was also prepared to furnish sureties, but before he was so released, the detention order dated 9.9.2002 was served on him on 10.9.2002. Learned counsel points out from the grounds that this bail order as well as the bail application filed by the detenu have nowhere been considered by the Detaining Authority and therefore, the detention order is clearly vitiated.