S.MANIKUMAR, J. - (1.) MOTHER has sought for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to quash the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli, in C.No.14/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/ 2014, dated 26.03.2014, branding her son, as Goonda and to set him at liberty.
(2.) ACCORDING to her, on 16.02.2014, a case in Crime No. 44/2014, for the alleged offences, under Sections 323 and 365 IPC, was registered on the file of Government Hospital Police Station, Trichy, and that he was arrested, on 17.02.2014, and remanded to judicial custody. Grounds of detention, dated 26.03.2014, reveals that an adverse case in Sessions Court Police Station, Crime No. 315/2013, under Sections 324 and 506(ii) IPC, has been registered. Besides, a ground case in Crime No.44/2014 under Sections 323 and 365, later on, altered into Sections 147, 148, 342, 364, 294(b), 323, 326, 307 r/w 302 IPC, has also been registered. In the adverse case, he was released on bail. On the request of the sponsoring authority, the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirapalli City, Trichy, 2 nd respondent, branded him as Goonda.
(3.) THOUGH several grounds were raised, assailing the correctness of the order of detention, inviting the attention of this Court, to the Observation Mahazar, dated 16.02.2014, prepared by the Inspector of Police, Uraiyur Police Station, Trichy Metropolitan Police Station, enclosed at page 31, in the Booklet, Rough Sketch, at page 34, and the statement of Mr.C.Chidambaram Pillai Nadana Kumar, one of the witnesses, Mr.N.Anandakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged incident, referred to, in the ground case, took place in a remote Coconut Grove, and that the said place is situated, in village outskirts, and that is not a busy traffic area, as mentioned in the grounds of detention. He further submitted that the said statement, is contrary to the Mahazar and no such fact existed. He therefore, submitted that 'public order', was not all affected, warranting detention. According to him, it was only a law and order problem, which does not warrant any action under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Referring to the recitals in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention that Kodiyalam Village public, who knew the incident, through several newspapers, spoke about the same and thereby, panic struck in their minds, and that they feared, even to go to that place, where the murder occurred and further inviting the attention of this Court to the conclusion of the detaining authority, that the students of the college, where the deceased studied, discussed about the incident, and that there was a panic, are only ipse dixit statements and that there are no materials in the booklet and served on the detenu. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the conclusion of the detaining authority that the place of crime was a busy traffic area, nearby a familiar Murugan Temple, and thereby, the detenu created a feeling of insecurity, in the minds of the people of the area, in which the occurrence took place, and thereby, acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, is wholly incorrect, in the light of the contents of the Observation Mahazar, Statements and Rough Sketch. The petitioner has also raised other valid grounds.;