MANGAVARAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the mother of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 18.09.2013 made in Memo No: 1032/BDFGISSV/2013 passed by the 2nd respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a 'Goonda' and 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, hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. As per the grounds of detention dated 18.09.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_529_TLMAD0_2014_1.html</FRM>.

(2.) In para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated among other things that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 07.09.2013 morning at about 10.30 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, M7 Manali New Town Police Station, in Crime No. 796 of 2013 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 and 506(ii) r/w 397 I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on the same day i.e. on 07.09.2013 at 13.30 hours and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Ponneri, on the same day and remanded to judicial custody till 20.09.2013. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition.

(3.) Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the question of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, in relying on the statement alleged to have been made by the sponsoring authority as to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application in Cr. No: 1407 of 2013, which is the 5th adverse case and submits that the special report of the sponsoring authority does not disclose any such information and therefore, the detention order is liable to be quashed on that sole ground.