HARINI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] was listed before us on 25/4/2023. When this matter was taken up, we were informed that the co-accused who were clamped with similar preventive detention orders challenged the same in HCP Nos.2665 of 2022, 12, 14 and 21 of 2023 and they were allowed. But the matter was thereafter mentioned and we were informed that this is wrong and the four HCPs are pending and have not been allowed. Therefore, our order dtd. 25/4/2023 saying that the captioned HCP will also stand allowed on same terms is now recalled. We heard out the HCP on merits in the presence of Ms.Gayathri, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Chandrasekar, learned counsel on record for petitioner, who joined this Court on video conferencing platform (to be noted this is a hybrid hearing) and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public prosecutor for all respondents and the following order is made:

(2.) Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forestoffenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sandoffenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.

(3.) There is an adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.897 of 2022 on the file of E-5 Sholavaram Police Station for alleged offences under Ss. 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.