MURUGAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner calls in question legality of the order of detention 20. 12. 2006 passed by the second respondent ordering his detention under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short the Act) branding him as a "goonda".

(2.) THE order of detention dated 20. 12. 2006 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No. 1815 of 2006 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 392, 397 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the detenu was that on 11. 12. 2006 at about 4. 30 p. m. , when one Deva Anandan, was returning from work at the junction of Madhavaram High Road and Pallavan Road, the petitioner and one Durai wrongfully restrained Deva Anandan at the point of knife and asked him what was in his pocket. The petitioner and his associate kicked Deva Anandan in his stomach, beat him over his chest and cheek. The associate of the detenu inserted his hand into the shirt pocket of Deva Anandan and took away Rs. 1000/ -. The detenu snatched the wrist watch and Nokia Cell phone of Deva Anandan. Noticing that the detenu and his associate are escaping, Deva Anandan raised huse and cry and chased them. The public nearby tried to apprehend them on the spot, but the detenu and his associate threatened them at the point of knife, pelted stones. The public ran to safer places out of fear of danger to their lives and properties, and thus the detenu and his associate created terror and panic at the spot. That apart, the detaining authority also took note of the ten adverse cases pending against the detenu in Crime Nos. 101/2002, 292/2002, 3031/2004, 3032/2004, 663/2006, 1814/2006, 1791/2006, 1800/2006, 1374/2006 and 1805/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 392, 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code. The detaining authority having satisfied that the detenu is habitually committing the crime and his activities are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order branding him as a Goonda".

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the detenu was arrested and remanded in Crime Nos. 1814/2006, 1791/2006, 1800/2006, 1374/2006 and 1805/2006 as well as in the ground case in Crime No. 1815 of 2007, the detaining authority while considering the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail has given consideration only to Crime No. 1815 of 2007 and not to the adverse cases in which the detenu was remanded. It is further submitted that remand order passed in Crime Nos. 1814/2006, 1791/2006, 1800/2006, 1374/2006 and 1805/2006 were not furnished.