MATHI ALIAS MATHIVANAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to the order dated 25.4.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 directing detention of one Mathivanan @ Mathi, son of Nataraj.

(2.) In the grounds of detention, it is specified by the detaining authority that on 15.4.2002 evening, one Mohammed Musthafa, who was working as Imam in the Muslim Prayer Hall in Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, was assaulted by one Saravanan and Boopalan, who were the office bearers of the unit of Siva Sena. Out of these persons, Saravanan took knife and stabbed the said Mohammed Musthafa because of which Mohammed Musthafa was injured. It is then said that when a duel was created because of the assault, some of the persons came there for help and the assailants ran to the nearby petty shop and started brandishing soda bottles to the public. Saravanan smashed bottles and Boopalan brandished the knife and caused all the public run helter skelter. The traffic also came to a stand still. A reference was made to the criminal case registered in Crime No.519 of 2002 under Sections 341, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. by the Sub Inspector of Police, B-6, R.S.Puram Police Station, Coimbatore City. It was then stated that during the course of investigation, the detenu Mathivanan came to be arrested and confession was recorded from him on 17.4.2002. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore and was remanded to the jail custody. It is relied further that the news of attack on a Muslim Imam created panic and uneasiness among the public in the area and also generated a feeling of great scare in the City and large police had to be deployed to bring about communal harmony and ease the tension. It is then pointed out that the detenu was a party to the conspiracy for this incident. Out of the conspiracy of which the detenu was a party along with Saravanan and Boopalan which pertains doing away with important muslims and also about targeting Mohammed Musthafa. Saravanan contacted the detenu over phone before and after the attack on Mohammed Musthafa. On the basis of the statement of Mohammed Musthafa and the eye witnesses and the confession statement of the detenu as well as other accused, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the detenu's liberty would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) It is an admitted position that the detenu was not released on bail during the pendency of the criminal case. However, today, Mrs.Jagadeeswari, the learned counsel, produced before us the judgment of the criminal case in S.c.No.351 of 2002 which pertains to the very same incident. She points out that while the first two accused have been convicted, the detenu, who is the third accused, has been acquitted. The learned counsel therefore says that the very basis of the preventive detention has been knocked down and that the incident would not be available for the detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. The contention is that the continued detention becomes illegal because it would have to be deemed that such incident was not available to the detaining authority.