KUMARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is by one Kumari under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for release of her husband, S. Kannan, who is detained under a detention order passed by the second respondent-Commissioner of Police. The said detention order has been passed under S.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The reason for the detention, as seen from the grounds of detention order, appears to be that on 21st February, 1987 at about 8 p.m. at Eswaradas Lal Street, one Ranganathan and the detenu Kannan as Goondas asked on Pugazendran for time, and in the guise of looking at this watch, they snatched the watch both of them threatening him with knives, and ran away. Pugazendran chased them along with some others who joined him. While running, Ranganathan and the detenu Kannan again threatened Pugazhendran and others with knives creating terror and panic, in the locality. On seeing this the shop-keepers and others in the locality got frightened. Two police constables who came from the opposite side caught hold of them. Upon this, a case was registered and it was investigated. With this incident, two others incidents of offences of theft with crime numbers which are said to have occurred earlier, one on 24.1.1987, and the other on 15th February, 1987, have been cited as offences committed by the detenu. It is stated in the grounds of detention that the detaining authority is satisfied that if the detenu is let to remain at large, he will indulge in further activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and it is necessary to make the detention order.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is denied that the detenu committed any offence as alleged in the grounds of detention and the detenu was engaged in any activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is further contended that the detenu has been implicated in false cases.

(3.) IN this context, we think, we may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1334: (1984) 3 S.C.C. 583, in which a similar enactment in the State of Bihar has been considered. The said Act is,Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. S. 12 of this Act gives power to detain certain persons and it, so far as it is necessary for us, reads thus-