(1.) THE petitioner, mother of detenu Sundarrajan @ vimalraj, son of Balasubramanian, who was incarcerated by order dated 28. 3. 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, 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 28. 3. 2007 in cr. M. P. No. 13/2007 against her son, now confined at Central prison, Tiruchirapalli, 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 ground case, which led to the order of detention, as complained by one Poongothai, had taken place on 21. 1. 2007 at about 12. 30 pm. As per the complaint, the complainant and one Chellam were returning from forest after collecting firewoods. At that time, the detenu, under the guise of questioning about the road, snatched away the chain of Chellam and threatened the complainant and Chellam that he would do away both of them if they try to apprehend him, fled away in his motor cycle. When a passerby tried to apprehend him by chasing the detenu, the detenu threatened him and escaped by rashly driving his motor cycle. A case was registered in Crime No. 11/07 for the offence punishable under Section 379, IPC.
(3.) TAKING into consideration the above said ground case as well as four adverse cases, viz. , Crime No. 289/2003 on the file of Karur Aravakurichi Police Station for the offence under Sections 397 and 402, IPC, Crime No. 120/2006 on the file of Perambalaur V. Kalathur Police Station for the offence under Section 379 read with 75, IPC, Crime no. 12/2007 Perambalur Kaikalathur Police Station for the offence under Section 379, IPC and Crime No. 7/2007 on the file of Perambalur V. Kalathur Police Station for the offence under Sections 380 read with 75, 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 and public health, the second respondent ordered his detention dubbing him as a Goonda.