JAKKIRIYA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, father of the detenu by name Ismail, challenges the order of detention passed by the second respondent in No. 238/bdfgissv/2007 dated 14. 6. 2007 branding his son as a Goonda, by filing this petition for Habeas Corpus seeking to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the order of detention, referred to above, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

(2.) 2. 1. The impugned order of detention dated 14. 6. 2007 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No. 229 of 2007 on the file of Egmore Railway Police Station for alleged commission of offences under Sections 392 and 506 (2) IPC, complaint of which was lodged by one Pradeep Kumar. According to the complainant, on 31. 5. 2007 at about 1. 45 p. m. , when his daughter by name Shiny was proceeding near the ticket counter at Light House Railway Station, the detenu and another followed her and at the knife point, threatened her and snatched her gold chain. When she raised alarm, the ticket issuing clerk and the public chased and tried to apprehend the accused, but they brandished their knives and pelted stones on them, which scattered all over the roadside. Out of fear and danger to their lives, the public ran here and there resulting in the dislocation of traffic and while the accused creating panic and terror situation tried to escape from the spot, the public and the ticket issuing clerk surrounded them and handed over them to the police. The detenu and the other accused were arrested and later, produced before XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, who remanded them to judicial custody. 2. 2. The second respondent, taking note of the above ground case and finding that there are two adverse cases, one on the file of D. 3 Ice House Police Station in Crime No. 460 of 2007 for offences under Sections 457, 380 IPC and the other on the file of Tambaram Railway Police Station in Crime No. 266 of 2007 for the offence under Section 379 IPC. , 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 branding him as a Goonda.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [ (2003) 1 CRIMES 446], contends that the said two adverse cases relate to the offence punishable under Section 379 and 380 I. P. C. , and therefore, the solitary instance of robbery mentioned in the ground case is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention and hence, the impugned order of detention suffers on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.