D.TAMILSELVI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in C3.D.O. No. 101/2013 dated 11.11.2013. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

(2.) Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the following two grounds:

(3.) We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions. He would submit that the detenu is involved in various grave offences including the one in the 2nd adverse case which is a gang rape attracting Sections 376 IPC @ 376(g) r/w 109 IPC. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the discrepancies, which do not come under the purview of violation of constitutional requirement, are not to be taken into consideration to defeat the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority. He has further submitted that considering the fact that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public health, the detention order was passed solely for the purpose of keeping him under watch and vigil, so as to avoid any untoward incident in the locality.