P THANGADURAI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The petitioner, father of the detenu T. Muthu Kumar, aggrieved by the order of detention dated 29. 11. 2007 passed by the second respondent in Memo No. 411/bdfgissv/2007 branding the said detenu as Goonda under the provisions 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), has filed this petition seeking issue of Writ of Habeas corpus to call for the records relating the order of detention, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) THE ground case, which led the detaining authority to pass the order of detention, is that on 30. 9. 2007 at about 13. 00 hours, when Senthurpandian was proceeding in his motor cycle an old G. S. T. Road near madhura Hotel, the detenu and one Jeeva @ Jeevanandham and Ramesh @ Rajesh waylaid him and demanded money at the point pf knife by uttering filthy words. When the complainant refused to pay money, the detenu voluntarily took away a sum of Rs. 500 from his shirt pocket. At that time, jeeva @ Jeevsnandham took out a stick and beat the complainant over his head and snatched the wrist watch from him. The detenu and his associates also threatened the public, who came to the rescue of the victim, by brandishing their knives and out of fear and danger to their lives and properties, the public ran for safer places, which created panic and terror in the locality as well as dislocation of traffic, taking advantage of which, the detenu and his associates. made their good escape from the spot. On the basis of the complaint preferred by the said Senthurpandian, a case was registered in Section 14 Peerkankaranai, Police station crime No. 801/2007 for offences under sections 341,336, 427, 394,397 and 506 (ii)IPC and while the case was pending investigation, the detenu and his associates were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

(3.) TAKING into consideration the abovesaid ground case as well as an adverse case in Crime No. 191 of 2007 on the file of sectionl4 Peerkankaranai Police Station for the offence under Sections 341 and 302 IPC, the second respondent 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 dubbing him as a 'goonda. '