M MALLIGA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING an order of detention passed by the first respondent on 8. 9. 2006, this petition to quash the same by way of a writ of habeas corpus has been brought forth.

(2.) THE order under challenge is perused. THE Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looked into the affidavit in support of the petition and also the grounds on which the order under challenge is assailed.

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out to set aside the order. As could be seen from the detention order, on the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that there were actually three adverse cases pending against him, first one under Sections 398 and 506 (ii) IPC and Sec. 27 of Arms Act, the second one under Sections 341, 448, 398 and 506 (ii)IPC and Sec. 27 of Arms Act and the third one under Sec. 392 read with 397 of i. P. C. the detaining authority has passed the order. A reading of the materials would clearly indicate that all these cases came to be registered by the respective Police Station pursuant to the commission of the alleged crime by the detenu on the respective dates in public places. According to the prosecution, at knife point, he robbed the amounts as found therein. That apart, he has also created a panic and kept the public in a grip of terror, and the public were also moving hither and thither for shelter. Apart from that, the shops were also immediately closed. It is seen that sufficient materials were also placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority, and they have been properly perused. Now, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and recorded above, could be raised only before a Court of criminal law where the criminal cases are pending, and at no stretch of imagination, they could be considered at this stage and that too, for setting aside the order of detention. In all the cases, what is noticed by the Court is that public order was in peril, and the public tranquility was also put an end by the act of the accused. Thus, he has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Apart from that, there is all possibility of prejudicial activities in future also, which could be indulged by the detenu. The materials placed, in the opinion of this Court, would be sufficient to pass an order of detention, and accordingly, it has been passed.