ANJAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, mother of the detenu, by name Metha @ Anbarasan, challenges the order of detention dated 3. 5. 2007, passed against her son by the second respondent in C. O. C. No. 17/2007, branding him as 'goonda' under Section 3 (1) of the 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), seeking to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, now confined at Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) THE impugned order of detention was passed resting on the ground case registered in Crime No. 164 of 2007 on the file of Vedaranyam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 332, 506 (ii) and 307 I. P. C. , pursuant to the complaint lodged by one Kulandaivelu, the Head Constable attached to Vedaranyam Police Station. In the complaint, it is stated that on 21. 4. 2007, he along with the Inspector of Police and other police personnels, were on a hunt for an absconding accused and that when he searched alone, the detenu suddenly pounced on him from a bush and when he fell down, the detenu, sitting on his body, attempted to strangle his neck and in the melee, the head constable sustained bleeding injuries and when the other police personnel came to his rescue on hearing the hue and cry, the detenu took to his heels and escaped. During investigation, the detenu was arrested and produced before the Court for remanding him into judicial custody.

(3.) TAKING into consideration the above said ground case as well as four adverse cases on the file of same police station, viz. in Crime Nos. 47 of 2005 for offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 324, 506 (ii) IPC. , 18 of 2005 for offences under Sections 342, 294 (b), 326, 506 (ii) IPC. , 427 of 2006 for offences under Sections 435 and 506 (i) IPC. and 156 of 2007 for offences under Sections 294 (b), 323, 436, 506 (i) IPC. , the second respondent, having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention dubbing him as a 'goonda'.