RAJA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this HCP is the detention order dated 07. 08. 2006, whereby Petitioner's brother Chella @ Chandrasekar was detained, branding him as 'Goonda'as contemplated under Section 2 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982.

(2.) THE detenu had earlier come to adverse notice in a murder case in Cr. No. 634/2004, Karur District Erode Town P. S. for offence under Ss. 341, 302, 506 (ii) IPC for allegedly causing death of one Ravichandran @ Ravi. THE immediate cause for passing the detention order is the occurrence on 12. 06. 2006. It is alleged that on 12. 06. 2006, Siva @ Sivakumar , an accused in a murder case, who was released on bail, was done to death by the detenu and his associates. On the complaint lodged, case was registered in Pasupathipalayam P. S. Cr. No. 221/2006 under Ss. 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC. THE detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. While he was in custody, detention order was clamped on the detenu.

(3.) AWARENESS of the detaining Authority is reflected in paragraph no. 3 of the detention order that the detenu is in remand in Pasupathipalayam P. S. Cr. No. 221/2006 and his remand periods have been extended on 13. 07. 2006, 18. 07. 2006, 31. 07. 2006 and 14. 08. 2006. The detenu along with other co-accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Karur on 24. 06. 2006 and they were remanded to custody till 03. 07. 2006 [paper book pages 69 to 70]. From page no. 73 of the paper book, it is seen that on 13. 07. 2006, remand extension was sought for. But the paper book furnished to the detenu does not contain the Remand extension Order. Likewise, page no. 71, pages 75 and 76 of the paper book are remand requisitions dated 18. 07. 2006 and 31. 07. 2006 respectively. There is no material to show that remand was extended by the Judicial Magistrate nor are there materials to indicate that the remand was extended by video conference. We find much force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that sufficient materials were not placed before the Detaining Authority as to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu.