RAJARAJESWARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Chandru @ Chandrasekar. He has been branded as 'Goonda' and detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by the second respondent by means of his proceedings dated 17.1.2008. He came to the adverse notice of the police in Crime No.399 of 2002 on the file of Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem registered under Sections 147, 148 & 324 IPC. THE second adverse case is one in Crime No.428 of 2007 on the file of Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem registered under Sections 392 & 307 IPC. THE ground case is one in Crime No.430 of 2007 on the file of the same police station registered under Sections 392, 427 & 506(ii) IPC.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mrs. R. Subadra Devi has strenuously contended that the arrest of the petitioner's husband was neither intimated to the petitioner nor to any of the relatives or known persons as per law. She draws the attention of this Court to paragraph-3 of the detention order, in which it has been categorically stated that the Inspector of Police informed the family members about the reasons for the arrest and also informed Tmt. Rajarajeswari, W/o Chandrasekar about the reasons for the arrest of her husband and recorded their acknowledgments in the arrest memo.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 17.1.2008 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.