LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-326

K RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT; INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBASAMUDRAM POLICE STATION

Decided On August 20, 2014
K RAMALINGAM Appellant
V/S
State Of Tamil Nadu; District Collector And District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District; Inspector Of Police, Ambasamudram Police Station Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu/Mani alias Kasimani, branded as a 'Goonda' in Detention Order MHS.Confdl.No.23/2014 dated 21.04.2014, by the 2nd respondent/District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli, has sought for the present Writ of Habeas Corpus.

(2.) The Detenu has come to adverse notice of the police in four cases. The first case has been registered in Ambasamudram Police Station Crime No.290/2013, under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 302, 109 IPC, altered into Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 302, 109, 120(b); second case has been registered in Kallidaikurichi Police Station Crime No.25/2014, under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Prevention of Women Harassment Act 2002; third case has been registered in Ambasamudram Police Station Crime No.81/2014, under Sections 452, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of Tamilnadu Public Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act 1992, altered into Sections 452, 294(b), 324, 506(ii), 120(b) IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act 1992 and fourth case has been registered in Kadayam Police Station Crime No.102/2014, under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 IPC. The second adverse case is pending trial and rest of the cases are under investigation. Ground case has been registered on the file of Ambasamudram Police Station Crime No.97/2014, under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 IPC, in which, the detenu has been remanded. On being satisfied that the Detenu is indulging in activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Detaining Authority, has clamped a Detention Order, on the Detenu. At paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has concluded as follows:-

(3.) Challenging the Impugned Order, though 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.