SAMSUDEEN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who is branded as a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, has filed this habeas corpus petition, against the order of detention, dated 16-2-2007, clamped against him by the second respondent in No. 6/bdfgissv/2006.

(2.) PETITIONER came to adverse notice of the police in as many as seven cases. The detaining authority, namely, second respondent, on the strength of the report of the sponsoring authority, namely, Inspector of police, B-1 Vilakkuthoon Police Station, madurai, passed the detention order. The ground case mentioned therein goes to the effect that on 10-1-2007 at about 9. 00 a. m. , when one Shanker and Sethuramalingam were chatting in front of Kumaran Hospital near Arasamaram Pillalyar Kovil, Kamarajar salai, Madurai, the detenu came and issued threats to them, demanding money, for which Shanker refused and then the detenu picked up a knife, hidden in his left waist, and pointed it towards Shanker's chest and, on threatening, he robbed a sum of Rs. 200/-and a Nokia Cell from his shirt pocket and snatched his wrist watch also, besides criminally intimidating both of them with knife that he would murder them, on account of which Shanker raised an alarm. Due to the said activities, the general public ran helter skelter; the shop owners downed their shutters and the traffic came to a standstill. The detenu fled away from the scene. Hence, a case in Crime No. 56 of 2007 was registered against the detenu for the offences under sections 397 and 506-II, IPC on the file of b-1 Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai. Subsequently, the detenu was arrested on 14-1-2007 and further investigation was carried out.

(3.) MR. C. M. Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of this Court to various circumstances on which he formed grounds to portray that the detaining authority has not applied his mind, while passing the order of detention. His contentions are four pronged, which are as under : (i) Non-production of rough sketches in each of the cases registered against the detenu by the police. (ii) In the booklet supplied to the detenu, containing more than 100 pages, the sponsoring authority has not put his signature, which would show the non-application of mind. (iii) Reference by the detaining authority in his order to the effect that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application for the ground case, since in similar cases bails are already granted, though no such application is filed. (iv) Except the ground case, all other cases do not pertain to public tranquillity.