TAMILARASI W/O RAMESH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU; COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, O/O COMMISSIONER OF POLICE; SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the sister of the detenu Elangovan, branded as 'Goonda' in detention order in C.No.43/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2013, dated 16.11.2013 by the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, has sought for a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) The Detenu has came to the adverse notice of the police in two cases, were registered against him in Crime Nos.257 and 401/2013 under Sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of Tiruchirappalli City, Palakkarai P.S. The first adverse case is pending trial and the second adverse case has ended in conviction, when the order of detention was passed. The order of detention was passed on the basis of the ground case alleged to have registered on 10.10.2013 on the file of Cantonment Police Station in Crime No.1357 of 2013 under Sections 392 r/w 397 IPC in which he has been remanded. On being satisfied that the Detenu is habitually indulging in activities, affecting the public Law and Order, the Detaining Authority has clamped the Detention Order on the Detenu. At paragraph 5, the Detaining Authority has concluded as follows: "5. I am aware that Elangovan is in remand in Cantonment P.S.Cr.No.1357/2013 and has moved bail application before the Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli Division in Cr.M.P.No.1557/2013 for Cantonment PS Cr.No.1357/2013 and the same is pending. In a similar case, registered at Palakkarai P.S.Cr.No.277/2012 u/s 392 r/w 397 IPC bail was granted to the accused Elangovan by the in-charge Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli in Cr.M.P.No.627/2012 on 02.04.2012 who was remanded on 17.03.2012. From this I draw inference that he (Elangovan) is very likely to be released on bail in this case. If he comes out on bail he may indulge in such activities again as well which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that Elangovan, son of Arunachalam is a "Goonda" and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982."

(3.) Challenging the Impugned Order, though the learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia has raised many contentions, We do not propose to go into all the grounds of challenge, since in our considered view, the point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a delay in consideration of the representation merits acceptance.