SHEKAR ALIAS CHANDRASEKAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the Petitioner to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 1st Respondent herein and made in No.358/2009 dated 7.10.2009, set aside the same and to produce the body of the detenu, Sekar @ Chandrasekar, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) THE Petitioner, who is the detenu, challenges the order of detention, detaining him under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act "Goondas", since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on two earlier occasions and that on 27.9.2009, when the Complaint, Nandakumar, demanded namely money from the detenu, which was borrowed by him earlier, the detenu indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by attacking the complainant with a knife, which resulted in registration of the ground case in Crime No.732 of 2009 on the file of R-8 Vadapalani Police Station, for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 307,336,427 and 506(ii), IPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested the detenu on the same day and produced before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, who remanded him to Judicial custody till 9.10.2009.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of Detention passed against the detenu is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the order of Detention against the detenu. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the Remand Report, as evident from page No.137, at the end of the paragraph, it has been stated that the relative of the detenu has been intimated about the arrest of the detenu, whereas, in the Arrest Memo, as evident from page No.127, at column No.12, it has been stated that the friend of the detenu was intimated about the arrest of the detenu, and in view of the said discrepancy, the order of Detention passed against the detenu gets vitiated.