CHANDRAMATHI W/O DEILSON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE mother of the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of detention dated 9.11.2006 passed under Section 3(1) 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) on the allegation that the detenu is a Goonda within the meaning of the said Act.

(2.) THE detenu, who is aged about 22 years, came to adverse notice in eight cases indicated in the grounds of detention. From the tabular column furnished in the grounds of detention it appears that R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.40/2006 registered under Section 392 r/w.34 IPC was charged and pending trial in C.C.No.926 of 2006. THE second adverse case R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.44/2006 registered under Section 379 IPC was charged and pending trial in C.C.No.925 of 2006. THE third adverse case R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.45/2006 registered under Section 379 IPC was charged and pending trial in C.C.No.1987 of 2006. THE fourth adverse case R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.65/2006 registered under Section 379 IPC was charged and pending trial in C.C.No.1988 of 2006. THE fifth adverse case R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.66/2006 registered under Section 379 IPC was charged and pending trial in C.C.No.1989 of 2006. THE sixth adverse case R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.68/2006 registered under Section 379 IPC was charged and pending trial in C.C.No.1990 of 2006. THE seventh adverse case R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.237/2006 registered under Section 380 IPC was charged and pending trial in C.C.No.3907 of 2006. THE second adverse case R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.44/2006 registered under Section 379 IPC was charged and pending trial in C.C.No.925 of 2006. THE eighth adverse case R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.277/2006 registered under Section 392 IPC was charged and pending trial in C.C.No.4004 of 2006. THE occurrence on which the ground case in J-3 Guindy Police Station Crime No.1560/2006 has been registered under Sections 336, 307 and 506(ii) IPC is dated 6.9.2006. In the grounds of detention it is narrated that on the said date the detenu and two other persons, namely, Munusamy and Selvam, came near a vegetable shop at Maduvankarai in motor cycle. THE motor cycle hit a street dog which started barking. At that time, one Selvam, who was driving the motor cycle threw an empty beer bottle on the road which broke into pieces and one of the broken peace hit Tr. Singaroyan, who is sitting on the roadside platform. Tr. Singaroyan shouted against three persons. Immediately three persons got down from the motor cycle and abused such person in filthy language. At that time the detenu took out a better bottle and broke the same and rushed to stab such Tr. Singaroyan, but one Tr. Arun Kumar prevented the detenu. Immediately the detenu uttered abusive words and stabbed Tr.Arun Kumar over his neck. THE other persons raised hue and cry. THE public came to the spot to rescue and apprehend. THE other person Munusamy took a beer bottle, hurled the same by uttering abusive words. THE bottle fell on the roadside. THE public ran out of danger. Taking advantage of the panic situation, three persons including the detenu escaped from the spot on the motor cycle. Arun Kumar was taken to Guindy Balaji Hospital for treatment and one Thiru. Chermakumar proceeded to J-3 Guindy police station and lodged a complaint on the basis of which the ground case was registered. THE Inspector of Police during the course of investigation arrested the detenu on 11.9.2006 and subsequently the detenu was produced before IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and was remanded till 25.9.2006. His remand was extended periodically till 17.11.2006. THE investigation into the crime was not yet over. In the above background, the detaining authority passed an order to detain the detenu as a Goonda by observing inter alia as follows :-

(3.) A detention order is essentially passed on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority on the materials produced before such authority. Since the order of detention has the effect of affecting the liberty of a person, detaining authority is required to consider carefully the materials on record before passing any order of detention and it is not expected that an order of detention is mechanically signed by the detaining authority.