SENTHIL KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS habeas corpus petition has been filed by the detenu himself, challenging the order of detention passed by the first respondent dated 11.05.2007 passed under Section 3(i) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 branding the detenu as a 'Goonda'.

(2.) THERE were as many as three adverse cases against the petitioner. The first adverse case was in Crime No.1476 of 2005 dated 27.11.2005 for offences under Sections 341,294(b),323 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged offences committed on 23.11.2005 at 16.00 hours on VE Road at Thoothukudi. The second adverse case was in Crime No.518 of 2006 dated 05.10.2006 for offences under Sections 324, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of TNPWH Act for the alleged commission of offence on 05.10.2006 at 21.30 hours at George Road in Thoothukudi. The third adverse case was in Crime No.307 of 2007 dated 16.04.2007 for offences under Sections 452,323 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged offences committed on 15.04.2007 at 21.00 hours at George Road, Thoothukudi. The ground case was for an offence in Crime No.323 of 2007 alleged to have been committed on 19.04.2007 at 15.30 hours in the junction of Convent Road on VE Road, Thoothukudi and Keela Shunmugapuram Road. The detenu is alleged to have waylaid one Thiru.Pandian and his friend Balan. The detenu along with his brother Arumugam stated to have indulged in the said offence and the detenu waylaid the above person by name Pandian and also attempted to assault him with a knife, who is stated to have warded off such an attempt. In that process, the detenu is also stated to have thrown a country crude bomb from his pant pocket towards the victim, which fell down in a nearby culvert over ditch and exploded loudly. He was booked for offences under Sections 341, 294(b),427,307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3,4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act. He was arrested on the same day and sent for remand before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, who remanded him to judicial custody till 03.05.2007 which was extended upto 17.05.2007.

(3.) MR.S.P.Samuel Raj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, placed before us an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Revathy v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006(2) M.L.J.(Crl.) 606 and contended that in an identical case, where the detenu was booked under several adverse cases of lesser offences and a ground case of a graver offence, the Division Bench took the view that if there is every scope for the detenu to come out on bail in the ground case which is for a graver offence, there would be every possibility of the detenu being released in the adverse cases and therefore, the conclusion of the detaining authority on that score cannot be interfered with.