THIRUPATHY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel representing all the learned counsel on record for the petitioners and Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State/respondents. Since all these Habeas Corpus Petitions arise out of a common offence and the grounds of detention are also akin, they are being disposed of in common.

(2.) All these petitions have been filed either by the detenus themselves or by their wives or mother. The detenus have been detained by the detaining authority in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Piracy Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), "in short, the Act", read with orders issued by the Government in various Government Orders under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, branded as Goondas, for their involvement in the crimes under Sections 379, 380, 341, 336, 427, 392 and 506(ii) of IPC.

(3.) The detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction, based on the adverse cases and also the ground cases of each of the detenus on the said offences, taking into account the possibility of their coming out on bail and indulging in the activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace, and also that the recourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing them from indulging in such activities and also the material information furnished by the sponsoring authority so also the similar cases, wherein bail was granted to the accused by the court, and detained the detenus under Section 2(f) of the Act.