THANGAVELAMMAL Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name V.K. Gurusamy, has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the second respondent against the detenu, branding the detenu as Goonda.

(2.) In the impugned order of detention, the detention authority has relied on four adverse cases and the ground case namely Crime No. 716 of 2018 on the file of Teppakulam Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1- A) of The Arms Act and Section 506 (ii) of IPC . According to the detaining authority, the ground case came to be registered on 03.08.2018. On that date, during a routine police check up, the police personnel intercepted a Scorpio Car bearing Registration No. TN 64 K 3494 and on an enquiry, it came to light that the detenue and two others, who are occupants of the car, have involved themselves in several criminal cases. A search made in the car revealed that the detenu and others were armed with pistols illegally purchased from Bihar. It is in connection with the possession of the arms illegally and for having allegedly threatened the police personnel at the time of their arrest, the case in Crime No. 716 of 2018 came to be registered for the offences mentioned above and the detenue and two others were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.08.2018. It is also seen that when the detenu was in remand, he was formally arrested in the fourth adverse case namely Crime No. 415 of 2018. It is also seen that in the first three adverse cases, the bail petitions filed by the detenu were allowed and he was granted bail subject to certain conditions. However, in connection with the fourth adverse case, the successive bail applications filed by the detenue was dismissed on 14.08.2018 and on 01.10.2018. The third bail application filed by the detenu in Crl.MP No. 5136 of 2018 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai is pending, as could be seen from the impugned order of detention. It is at this juncture, the second respondent has passed the impugned order of detention by reasoning that there are adequate possibilities for the detenu to come out on bail and if he is let on bail, he will indulge in activities which would be detrimental to public law and order.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds assailing the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent, primary among them is the delay in passing the impugned order of detention. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the detenu was arrested in connection with the ground case in Crime No. 716 of 2018 on 03.08.2018. However, the impugned order of detention came to be passed on 29.10.2018 after 87 days. This delay, according to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, would vitiate the order of detention and there is no necessity at all for the detention authority to pass the impugned order of detention after 87 days of arrest of the detenu. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained under law and he prayed for setting aside the order of detention.