AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Desingu Raja @ Desingu, who was detained as a ''Goonda'' as
contemplated under the 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 the impugned detention order dated
29.09.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the detaining authority had shown that the petitioner had involved
in six adverse cases, awareness was shown only with regard to the ground case in Crime No. 3291/2005 and in such circumstance, according to
the counsel, even if he gets bail order from the Court in respect of the ground case, without further orders in respect of other adverse cases, he
cannot come out and indulge in prejudicial activities as claimed by the detaining authority.
With regard to the said contention, we verified all the six adverse cases mentioned in the earlier paragraph of the grounds of detention. As rightly
pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the first five adverse cases relate to theft and the ground case relates to the offence under
Sections 341, 323, 336, 392, 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. It is not in dispute that the offences relating to the ground case are graver in nature. In
such circumstances, we are satisfied that the awareness shown in respect of the ground case by the detaining authority is sufficient for passing the
order of detention.
Except the above said contention, no other point has been urged. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.