SENTHILKUMARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in H.C.P.(MD) No. 647 of 2015 is the wife of the detenu and she has filed the Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Detention Order No. 54/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 13.04.2015, passed by the second respondent and to produce the detenu Sudalaimuthu, S/o. Padmanaban, aged about 30 years, before this Court and set him at liberty. Along with the present Habeas Carpus Petition, it is seen that the wife of the detenu has filed an affidavit, challenging the proceedings designing her husband as "GOONDA". Further, the petitioner has enclosed a copy of Detention Order No. 54/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 13.04.2015 at Page No. 1 and copy of Grounds of Detention at Page No. 2, along with the affidavit itself. In the said Detention Order itself, it is clearly stated as follows:

(2.) Further, in the said Grounds of Detention, it is clearly pointed out by the second respondent that the detenu has been arrested and the case properties, namely, knife and Rs. 100/ - have been seized from him under the Athatchi and the detenu has been remanded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Madurai on 17.03.2015. Further, in the Grounds of Detention, it is clearly observed that the detenu already involved in the said adverse case and the ground case and the detenu will indulge in future activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is branded as a "GOONDA" as contemplated under Sec. 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Hence, from the clear reading of the said Detention Order and grounds of detention enclosed with the Habeas Corpus Petition itself, it is seen that the second respondent has mentioned the relevant details and also specifically stated there is a compelling necessity to detain him from indulging in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to maintenance of public under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982.

(3.) Further, in order to substantiate the various averments made in the Grounds of Appeal, the second respondent has filed various details and records, in the booklet containing various pages upto Page No. 192, and also established that there are bona fide reasons for coming to the conclusion to detain the detenu under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.