SANTHAVEL Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned 'habeas corpus petition' ('HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity) has been filed in this Court on 16/6/2022 by the detenu himself assailing a detention order dtd. 8/6/2022 bearing D.O.No.63/2022-C2 made by the second respondent (jurisdictional District Collector). The 'detention order' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned D.O.' and the 'second respondent/ detaining authority' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'D.A.' for the sake of convenience and clarity. To be noted, the fifth respondent, who is the jurisdictional Inspector of Police, is the sponsoring authority.

(2.) Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for all the five respondents are before us.

(3.) Owing to nature of the grounds on which the impugned D.O. has been assailed and also the legal perimeter of a HCP qua a detention order under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand-Offenders, Sexual offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity], we deem it appropriate to give only a thumb nail sketch of facts. It will suffice to say that there is one adverse case and a ground case. The ground case is Crime No.100 of 2022 for alleged offences qua Ss. 294(b), 341, 324, 307 IPC r/w Sec. 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. This is captured in sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention, which reads as follows: