ARASAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This HCP is filed by the friend of the detenu Arasan who has been detained as a Goonda by detention order dated 6.7.2002.

(2.) The detenu is alleged to have been involved in two previous cases registered as Crime No.670 of 2001 and Crime No.679 of 2001. Apart from the said two cases, on 23.6.2002, when the Sub-Inspector of Police, Andimadam was present in his Police Station, one Murugan appeared before him and filed a complaint stating that on 11.6.2002 himself and others went to the Shandy and boarded in a town bus at Andimadam. When the bus stopped at Moonkikattai, the detenu dashed against a lady passenger and had a wordy altercation within the bus. The witness and his friend intervened and questioned about the conduct of the detenu. Therefore, the detenu had a grudge against him. On 23.6.2002, about 5.30 a.m., while the witness was sleeping inside his house, the detenu and his five associates came to the house of the witness and enquired his wife. The wife of the witness stated that her husband was not present in the house. The detenu and five of his associates forcibly trespassed into the house with intention to kidnap the said witness. The witness raised alarm and tried to escape from their clutches. The detenu after abusing the witness, tried to cut him with his aruval over his neck. The witness warded off the cut injury. The associates of the detenu beat him with wooden logs. On seeing this, the wife of the witness cried and some villagers gathered. The detenu and his associates fled away from the place. The Sub-Inspector took up the investigation and visited the place of crime and prepared a mahazar, observation mahazar, rough sketch and also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The detenu was arrested on 23.6.2002 and his voluntary statement was recorded. He was also produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Jeyankondam on 24.6.2002 for remand. Thereafter on the request by the sponsoring authority and on being satisfied that the conduct of the detenue amounted to violation of public order, ordered the detention.

(3.) Mr.R.Sankara Subbu, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following points for consideration which are considered one after the other.