REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAVICHANDRAN Appellant

V/S

STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOTHER has sought for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to quash the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli, in C.No.14/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/ 2014, dated 26.03.2014, branding her son, as Goonda and to set him at liberty.

(2.) ACCORDING to her, on 16.02.2014, a case in Crime No. 44/2014, for the alleged offences, under Sections 323 and 365 IPC, was registered on the file of Government Hospital Police Station, Trichy, and that he was arrested, on 17.02.2014, and remanded to judicial custody. Grounds of detention, dated 26.03.2014, reveals that an adverse case in Sessions Court Police Station, Crime No. 315/2013, under Sections 324 and 506(ii) IPC, has been registered. Besides, a ground case in Crime No.44/2014 under Sections 323 and 365, later on, altered into Sections 147, 148, 342, 364, 294(b), 323, 326, 307 r/w 302 IPC, has also been registered. In the adverse case, he was released on bail. On the request of the sponsoring authority, the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirapalli City, Trichy, 2 nd respondent, branded him as Goonda.

(3.) THOUGH several grounds were raised, assailing the correctness of the order of detention, inviting the attention of this Court, to the Observation Mahazar, dated 16.02.2014, prepared by the Inspector of Police, Uraiyur Police Station, Trichy Metropolitan Police Station, enclosed at page 31, in the Booklet, Rough Sketch, at page 34, and the statement of Mr.C.Chidambaram Pillai Nadana Kumar, one of the witnesses, Mr.N.Anandakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged incident, referred to, in the ground case, took place in a remote Coconut Grove, and that the said place is situated, in village outskirts, and that is not a busy traffic area, as mentioned in the grounds of detention. He further submitted that the said statement, is contrary to the Mahazar and no such fact existed. He therefore, submitted that 'public order', was not all affected, warranting detention. According to him, it was only a law and order problem, which does not warrant any action under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAVICHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address