Muthu vs The Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, The District Collector and District Magistrate and The Inspector of Police

M. Chockalingam, J.—Challenge is made to the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 16.10.2009, whereby one Veeramuthu @ Krishnan @

Nagakrishnan, brother of the petitioner, was ordered to be detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,

Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, terming

him as a ""Goonda''.

The affidavit and the materials filed in support of the petition, in particular the order under challenge are looked into. The Court heard the

learned Counsel for the petitioner.

It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority that the alleged detenu was to be detained

under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a ""Goonda"", as he was involved in four adverse cases, as detailed below,

Sl.No. Police Station & Crime Number Provisions of law

Tiruchirappalli Navalpattu P.S. Cr.No. 82/2006 u/s 147, 148, 341, 302

read with Section 149 IPC

Tiruchirappalli Navalpattu P.S. Cr.No. 49/2008 u/s 387, 506(ii) IPC

Tiruchirappalli Ponmalai P.S. Cr.No. 141/2008 u/s 294(b), 324, 427

and 506(ii) sIPC

Tiruchirappalli Vaiyampatti P.S. u/s 397 IPC

Cr.No 553/2009

and also in the ground case in Crime No. 554/2009, registered under Sections 392 and 397 IPC on the file of Vaiyampatti Police Station for a

crime that had taken place on 25.09.2009, in which he was arrested on the very day and remanded to judicial custody, on scrutiny of the materials

placed before him, the detaining authority, the 2nd respondent herein, after recording his subjective satisfaction that the alleged detenu was so

acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, branded him as a ""Goonda"" and ordered him to be detained under Tamil Nadu

Act, 14 of 1982, which is the subject matter of challenge before the Court.

At the time of advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel urged only one point, which according to him, is strong

enough to set aside the order of detention. Learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court, pointing to paragraph No. 5 of

the Grounds of Detention, that the Detaining Authority has stated that no bail application was filed by the alleged detenu in Vaiyampatti Police

Station Crime Nos. 553/2009 and 554/2009 and while observing so, the authority has not even stated that there was any real possibility or

imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail but, on the contrary, it is stated that there was a compelling necessity to detain him in order to

prevent him from involving in activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future, which was actually without any basic

material at all. Under such circumstances, it can be well stated, according to the counsel, the detaining authority has not applied his mind and taken

a correct decision in the matter of detaining the detenu under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 and therefore the order of detention needs to be set

aside.

The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

After looking into the materials available on record and considering the submissions made on either side, the Court is of the considered opinion

that the order under challenge is infirm and hence it has got to be set aside on the sole ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority, the detaining authority detained the detenu

under Act 14/1982 branding him as a ""Goonda"". It is also an admitted position that the detenu was involved in four adverse cases referred to

above and also in one ground case in Crime No. 554/2009 on the file of Vaiyampatti Police Station. It is also not in dispute that the Detaining

Authority has stated in paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention that the detenu is in judicial remand in Vaiyampatti Police Station Crime Nos. 553

and 554 of 2009 and he has not moved any bail application. In such circumstances, the observation made by the detaining authority that there was

possibility of the detenu himself indulging in activities of such nature which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future is without any

material, much less cogent materials. Further, the detaining authority has not recorded a finding that there is a real possibility or imminent possibility

of the detenu coming out on bail, which, in the considered opinion of the court, are requisite before coming to the conclusion to clamp an order of

detention. The detaining authority has not at all applied his mind to the factual matrix before coming to a proper decision and therefore the order of

detention impugned in this petition is liable to be quashed on this

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention in Cr.M.P. No. 54/2009, dated 16.10.2009, passed by

the 2nd respondent is quashed. The detenu Veeramuthu @ Krishnan @ Nagakrishnan is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence,

in accordance with law, is required in connection with any other case.