KARNAN ALIAS KARUNAKARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE detenu himself filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the order of detention dated 9/1/2008 passed against him under proceedings in Cr. M. P. No. 1/n. S. A. /2008/c1 by the third respondent herein under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The Petitioner/detenu has been detained in Central Prison at Coimbatore.

(2.) THE order of detention shows there is only one adverse case and one ground case. The adverse case relates to an incident that took place on 12/9/2007. The detenu with 61 others had been arrested in front of V. M. Bakkery, Tiruppur Road, Northern side of Dharapuram Bus Stand, for participating in a demonstration and a case was registered in Cr. No. 665 of 2007 under Section 151 of Cr. P. C. But, they were let off on the same evening. The ground case relates to an incident that took place on 28/12/2007. A complaint was lodged by the President of Almarasathun Noor Matharasa and Masjid stating that when one Nagamath Ibrahim opened the Masjid for conducting prayer on 28/12/2007 at about 5. 30 p. m. , he found a dead piglet thrown inside the Pallivasal with stab injuries. According to the complainant, this act might had been done with a malafide intention to defile the Islamic religion and the act had caused much annoyance and heart burning among the members of their society. A case was registered upon this complaint in Cr. NO. 953 of 2007 for the alleged offence under Section 295 of IPC. During the course of enquiry on the basis of information received, the detenu was arrested. The detenue confessed that he was an active member of Hindu Front Party. According to the order of detention, the detenue had thought of placing a dead piglet in order to humiliate the Islam Community and he had hit a piglet with stone and thereafter using half blade he cut its neck and later thrown the same into the masjid premises. He heard that the complaint has been lodged in the police station and when he went to the Masjid he saw a large posse of police and therefore, he decided to go over to Udumalaipet. When he was about to board a bus, he was arrested.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining authority was conferred with the power under Section 3 (3) of the National Security Act by order dated 9/10/2007 and if so this order would continue in force only for three months and the said three months period would expire on 8/1/2008. Therefore, the order of detention passed on 9/1/2008 was invalid.