G ESWARI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenu - Gopi alias Gopinathan, husband of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 ).

(2.) CHALLENGING the abovesaid detention, the wife of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the first respondent in connection with Memo No. 140/bdfgissv/2007, dated 4. 4. 2007, to quash the same and to produce the detenu, now detained in Central Prison, Chennai under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

(3.) 3. 1. The order of detention dated 4. 4. 2007 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No. 359 of 2007 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 341, 336, 397 and 506 (2) IPC, complaint of which was lodged by one Balachandran. According to Balachandran, on 26. 3. 2007 at about 0830 hours, when he was proceeding at the junction of Railway Border Road and Sowrashtra Nagar 2nd Street by walk, the detenu, who was coming in the opposite direction, dashed against him and asked what is in his pocket, when the complainant replied there is nothing with him, the detenu took out a knife from his pant pocket and threatened to kill him. The detenu voluntarily inserted his hand into the shirt pocket of the complainant and took away Rs. 120/ -. The complainant raised hue and cry, and on hearing the same, the public as well as the police personnel, who were at the spot tried to apprehend the detenu. Noticing the same, the detenu threatened to kill them at the point of knife and further picked up stones from the roadside and pelted the same against them. The public who were at the spot noticed the atrocious activities and ran for safer places out of fear of danger to their lives. However, the police personnel with the help of public and complainant apprehended the detenu. Based on the complaint given by the complainant a case, as stated above, was registered. 3. 2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of the three adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz. , i. Crime No. 788 of 2004 registered on the file of Poonamallee Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 363, 392, 384, 324 and 506 (2) IPC with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 6. 7. 2004; ii. Crime No. 2262 of 2005 registered on the file of Aminjikarai Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 7. 7. 2005; and iii. Crime No. 2240 of 2005 registered on the file of Choolaimedu Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 7. 7. 2005. 3. 3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order.