JAMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the detenu, Jamal, son of Hussain, who was incarcerated by order dated 9. 2. 2007 of the second respondent 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) branding him as a Bootlegger, has preferred this writ petition for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 9. 2. 2007 in his Office Memo No. 45/bdfgissv/2007 against the petitioner, Jamal, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) THE detenu had earlier come to adverse notice in ten cases of theft and robbery of various police stations in Chennai. On 21. 01. 2007, the detenu and his associates are alleged to have wrongfully restrained Dharanendran @ Pandian and is alleged to have threatened him at knife point and relieved him of Rs. 500/ -. When the detenu attempted to attacked the complainant with knife, the complainant warded off the attacked and is alleged to have sustained injury on his left hand. On the basis of the complaint, case was registered in Cr. No. 41/2007 of R. 4 Pondy Bazaar P. S. under Ss. 341, 336, 307, 395, 397 and 506 (2) IPC. The detenu was arrested on 21. 01. 2007 and was remanded to judicial custody. On being satisfied that the detenu has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the impugned detention order was clamped on him.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner though raised several points, we do not propose to go deep into those points, since in our view, the contention of the learned counsel as to non-application of mind must succeed. Drawing our attention to the booklet, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though the FIR was earlier in point of time, wherein the accused persons are named, in the accident register, which is subsequent in point of time, the assailants are stated as 'unknown persons' and detaining authority has not chosen to clarify this discrepancy on vital aspect, which would vitiate the detention order.