M PALANIAMMAL Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of preventive detention in respect of detenu kutty @ Madasamy passed under Act 14 of 1982 on 9. 12. 2004 has been challenged by the detenu's mother.

(2.) IN the grounds of detention, it has been indicated that the detenu is a history sheeted bad character suspect and he had come to adverse notice in the following cases: (1) Rajapalayam North P. S. Crime No. 431/96, wherein the detenu was sentenced to undergo S. I for one month u/s. 341 IPC. , S. I for two years u/s. 353 IPC. , S. I for three months u/s. 336 IPC. , S. I for one year u/s. 427 ipc and S. I for two years u/s. 506 (ii) IPC. (2) Srivilliputtur Town P. S. Crime No. 62/98 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 332, 324, 307, 286 IPC read with Section 3 of the INdian Explosives Substances Act in respect of incident dated 19. 1. 1998 and trial relating to this case is pending in Sessions Court. (3) Krishnankovil P. S Crime No. 117/02 dated 19. 8. 2002 for the offence under Sections 302, 211 read with 109, 120 (b) IPC read with 3 (ii) (v) of SC ST Act. Apart from the above adverse cases, the grounds of detention refer to an incident dated 31. 10. 2004, wherein one Baskaran was killed by 8 persons, including the detenu. There is also reference to another offence under Sections 147, 148, 332, 294 (b) and 307 IPC relating to an incident dated 3. 11. 2004, while the police were trying to apprehend the detenu in connection with the incident dated 31. 10. 2004. IN the grounds of detention it has been indicated that by committing a daring murder in a broad day-light on getting contract amount for committing the murder, and subsequently committing murderous assault on Police Officers, who had gone to the hiding place of the detenu to apprehend him, the detenu has created an alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of public in that area and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and accordingly the order of detention has been passed.

(3.) IN the aforesaid decision, relying upon two earlier decisions, it was observed that when the crime is more grave in nature, there is no imminent possibility of the accused being released on bail, and therefore, the order of detention based on such conclusion is vitiated for non-application of mind.