RAVI ALIAS MATTU RAVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this HCP is to the detention order whereby the petitioner was detained branding him as 'Goonda' under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

(2.) THE detenu had earlier come to adverse notice in five cases " Cr. No. 502/2004 [V1 Villivakkam P. S. under Ss. 341, 323 & 506(2) IPC]; Cr. No. 449/2005 [V1 Villivakkam P. S. under Ss. 341, 384 & 506(2) IPC]; Cr. No. 597/2006 [V1 Villivakkam P. S. under Ss. 323 & 307 IPC]; Cr. No. 756/2006 [V1 Villivakkam P. S. under Ss. 756 IPC] and Cr. No. 759/2006 [V1 Villivakkam P. S. under Ss. 341, 384 & 506(2) IPC]. Ground case relates to the occurrence on 12. 11. 2006, where the detenu is alleged to have committed robbery, relieving the defacto complainant of Rs. 700/-, regarding which a case was registered in Cr. No. 763/2006 under Ss. 341, 392 r/w 397, 336 and 506(2) IPC. THE petitioner was arrested on 13. 11. 2006 and was remanded to judicial custody. On being satisfied that if the detenu comes out on bail he would act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detention order was clamped on the petitioner.

(3.) DRAWING attention of Court to various pages of paper book, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the detenu was under arrest and in custody not only in the ground case Cr. No. 763/2006, but also in other cases and there is no proper application of mind in this regard. It is seen from the Arrest Intimation [page 213 of the paper book] that the detenu was arrested in connection with Cr. Nos. 763 of 2006, 756/2006 and 759/2006. In the Arrest Memo given to the detenu's wife Vasanthi [page 215 of the paper book], it was informed that the detenu was arrested in Cr. Nos. 763/2006 and 759/2006. Request for remand was sought for all three cases viz. , Cr. Nos. 763 of 2006, 756/2006 and 759/2006 [page 217 of the paper book]. As seen from the remand order, the petitioner was remanded only in ground case Cr. No. 763/ 2006. When the petitioner was arrested in all three cases, and Remand Request was also made for all three cases, material on record shows as if the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody only in the ground case viz. , Cr. No. 763/2006. There is no indication of the awareness of the Detaining Authority that the detenu was arrested in connection with other Cr. Nos. 756/2006 and 759/2006. There is non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority on this relevant fact, which in our opinion would vitiate the detention order.