RAZIA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenu - Raja alias Raja Mohamed, son of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 ).

(2.) CHALLENGING the abovesaid detention, the mother of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the repsondents to produce the detenu before this Court, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to set him at liberty, and to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention vide Memo No. 258/bdfgissv/2007, dated 21. 6. 2007 passed by the second respondent and to set aside the same.

(3.) 3. 1. The order of detention dated 21. 6. 2007 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No. 889 of 2007 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 392, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC, complaint of which was lodged by one Dinesh. According to the complainant, on 6. 6. 2007, at 1900 hours, while he was returning after meeting his friend, at the junction of Madhavaram High Road and Pallavan Salai near Don Bosco School, the detenu wrongfully restrained him and asked him to handover the money and as the complainant refused to handover the money, the detenu and one Kumaresan threatened and kicked him, due to which the complainant fell down. The detenu inserted his hand into the shirt pocket of the complainant and took away Rs. 500/- at the point of knife. The complainant raised hue and cry, and on hearing the same the public nearby came for his rescue. Noticing the same the detenu and Kumaresan picked up stones from the road side and pelted the same against them. The public ran for safer places out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. Taking advantage of the situation, the detenu and Kumaresan escaped. Based on the complaint given by Dinesh, a case, as stated above, was registered. The Inspector of Police conducted investigation and arrested the detenu. 3. 2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of the six adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz. , i. Crime No. 1220 of 2006 registered on the file of Thiru Vi Ka Nagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 1. 8. 2006; ii. Crime No. 274 of 2007 registered on the file of MKB Nagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 10. 4. 2007; iii. Crime No. 856 of 2007 registered on the file of Peravellore Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 17. 4. 2007; iv. Crime No. 516 of 2007 registered on the file of Choolaimedu Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 26. 4. 2007; v. Crime No. 234 of 2007 registered on the file of Aminjikarai Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 28. 4. 2007; and vi. Crime No. 887 of 2007 registered on the file of Thiru Vi Ka Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 26. 5. 2007. 3. 3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order.