RAGHAMATHRANI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Nazeer Hussain, son of T. M. Yusuf. The detenu was incarcerated by order dated 9. 7. 2007 of the second respondent 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. Hence, the petitioner seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 9. 7. 2007 in Cr. M. P. No. 8/2007/c1 against her husband, T. Y. Nazeer Hussain, who is now confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, 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.) ON the basis of a complaint lodged by one Chandramoorthy, that on 1. 5. 2007 at about 3. 30 hours, while he was driving lorry bearing Registration No. KA-01-D-4579, along with another driver, loading with 100 cotton bales, in the Kangayam to Chennimalai Road, two vehicles stopped in front of the lorry. Nine persons had alighted from those vehicles and three persons climbed up in the cabin of the lorry and threatened the complainant and the other person at the knife point and pushed them from the lorry and taken them in the vehicles in which they came. The other two persons had driven the lorry with the load towards Kangayam. They abducted the complainant and the other person and landed them at the Tamil Nadu Check-post near Krishnagiri. The whereabouts of the lorry was not known. Chandramoorthy informed about the incident to the lorry owner and lodged a complaint. Based on his complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 372 of 2007 on the file of Kangayam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 397 I. P. C. Enquiry revealed that the persons were the detenu herein and one Mani, Vijayan, Sunil @ Unni, Arumugam, Chandran, Madhu, Muthu, Nagappan and Narayanasamy.

(3.) THE second respondent, taking note of the above case as a ground case and seven adverse cases pending against the detenu for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 363, 323, 394, 365, 328, 366, 342, 397, 506 (ii), 395, 341, 379, 382 and 395 IPC and 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.