AMUTHAVALLI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the mother ( sic) of the detenu, by name Ramesh, who was incarcerated by order dated 17.3.2007 of the second respondent in Memo No. BDEGISSV No.17 of 2007 passed under the provisions 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 Goonda and he seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention, 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 order of detention dated 17.3.2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 28.2.2007 at about 11.00 hours, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Radhakrishnan to the Sub Inspector of Police, Otteri Police Station. According to the complainant, while he was running his mobile tea shop at Kelambakkam Road, Otteri Bazaar, the detenu came to his shop and at the knife point took away Rs.200/- from his pocket and threatened the public by showing the blood stained knife. On seeing this, the public, who were at the shop, ran hither and thither out of fear, thereby, the detenu created traffic dislocation in that area for some time. On the basis of the said complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police, Otteri Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 43 of 2007 for offence under Sections 294 (b), 384, 500(ii) INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 During the course of investigation, the Circle Inspector of Guduvancherri arrested the detenu on 2.3.2007 at 6.30 hours. THE detenu gave confession statement accepting the crime. THEreafter, he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu, who remanded him into judicial custody.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the order of detention on the ground of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. According to him, the detaining authority without taking note of the offence in the adverse cases opined that there is a real possibility of the accused being released on bail and therefore, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.