BAKIAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. In this petition, the detention of one Mathi @ Mathiyazhagan son of Krishnan, under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Inmoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai city is in challenge. The detaining authority has considered the said detenu as a "Goonda" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Said Act.

(2.) THE detaining authority has relied on two adverse cases. THEy being Crime Number 127 of 1997 on the file of H.B. Thiruvotriyur Police Station under Sections 341, 307 I.P.C. altered to 302 I.P.C. and Crime No. 130 of 1997 on the file of the same Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 336, 427 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. THE ground case relied upon by the detaining authority is vide Crime Number 179 of 1997 on the file of the same Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 332, 336, 427, 307 and 506 (ii) IPC., THE incident in the first adverse case is said to have taken place on 15.1.1997 where the detenu is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly with some others, which was armed with deadly weapons and the said assembly restrained one Umapathy due to previous enmity and chased him near a temple at West Mada Street, Thiruvotriyur upto the playground opposite to veterinary hospital. THE said Umapathy was caught hold of and then assaulted with sharp edged weapons by the members of the assembly. As a result of which, the said Umapathy was injured seriously and ultimately died in the hospital.

(3.) THE detaining authority has considered the fact that the accused persons have committed the offences on 15.1.1997, 16.1.1997 and ultimately on 24.1.1997. Those offences were ghastly and in addition to it, those offences were committed at the public place as to cause alarm in the neighbouring areas. THE detaining authority has also considered the fact of the surrender by the detenu alongwith others, and their being remanded to further custody. THE said facts, would in our opinion, be sufficient, though we would not go into the sufficiency of the reasons. In our opinion, it would not have been necessary for the detaining authority to consider the circumstances under which the detenu and other accused offered themselves for arrest. THE first contention therefore lacks merits and it must be rejected.