AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Petitioner, the father-in-law of the detenu, by name, Balaji, who was detained as a ""goonda"" as contemplated under
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum
Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by detention order dated 13.05.2005, challenges the same in this petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenu in this case, namely, Balaji, was detained along with the detenu in H.C.P. No.
1064/2005 and fairly states that most of the contentions raised in H.C.P. No. 1064/2005 are applicable to the detenu in this case as well.
In H.C.P. No. 1064/2005, we considered all the contentions raised and rejected them and ultimately, upheld the order of detention. In view of
our conclusion in H.C.P. No. 1064/2005, we are of the view that the said conclusion is applicable to the detenu in this case also.
Apart from the contentions raised and dealt with in H.C.P. No. 1 064/2005, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in paragraph 3 of
the grounds of detention, while narrating the facts, it is stated that,
...The Inspector of Police, during the course of investigation arrested Tvl. Saravanan and Balaji on 1.5.2005 at 18.30 hours near Harrington Road
Subway and they were examined....
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the arrest report, which finds place at Page No. 136 of the paper book supplied to the
detenu, the time and date of arrest is mentioned as 22.50 hours on 1.5.200 5 and in view of the variation in time in the grounds of detention and the
arrest report u/s 62 Cr.P.C., the ultimate detention order passed by the detaining authority is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application
of mind.
We verified the details furnished in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention and also perused the arrest report and the arrest card at page Nos.
136 and 138 of the paper book respectively. In the arrest card, at page No. 138 of the paper book, against column No. 6, it has been specifically
stated that the detenu was arrested at 18.30 hours on 1.5.2005.
On the other hand, in the arrest report u/s 62 Cr.P.C., which finds place at page No. 136 of the paper book, against the entry, ""taken into
custody, when and by whom, distance from station:"", it is mentioned as 1.5.2005 at 22.50 hours. When questioned as regards the variation in time
in the above two documents, the learned Government Advocate explained that the Inspector of Police, in the course of his investigation, arrested
Saravanan and Balaji, in order to curtail their illegal activity, at 18.30 hours on 1.5.2005 near Harrington Road Subway. Thereafter, they were
brought to the Police Station and taken into custody at 22.50 hours on the same day.
According to the learned Government Advocate, the details mentioned in the arrest card available at page No. 138 of the paper book is in
pursuance of the direction of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu''s case. It is also brought to our notice that the detenu was taken into custody only
at 22.50 hours on 1.5.2005 and according to the learned Government Advocate, there is no variation in time as claimed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner. We verified the relevant details mentioned in the grounds of detention, the arrest card and the arrest report. As rightly pointed out by
the learned Government Advocate, what is stated in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention is a statement as made by the Inspector of Police and
the detenu was actually taken into custody only at 22.50 hours on 1.5.2005, as mentioned in the arrest report. We, therefore, find no variation as
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of what is stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of detention. The Habeas Corpus Petition fails
and the same is dismissed.