MANO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by brother of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dtd. 17/8/2022 bearing reference 101/BCDFGISSSV/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.

(2.) Impugned detention order has been made 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 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 one adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.500 of 2022 on the file of E-5, Sholavaram Police Station for alleged offences under Ss. 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] read with Sec. 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. 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.