Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1652 (MAD)

Sukumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Another

2005-10-03

M.THANIKACHALAM, P.D.DINAKARAN

body2005
Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.) P.D. Dinakaran, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner, now detained at the Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. The ground case, according to the prosecution is said to have taken place on 3.2.2005. On that date at 11.00 a.m., when one Gunasekaran was returning to his home after meeting his relatives at T.P.Chatram, at the junction of New Avadi Road and Mandapam Road, Vijayakumar, Ganesan, Srinivasan, Ramesh, Sathish and the detenu Sugumar restrained him and demanded money, his wrist watch, etc. As Gunasekaran refused to part with money, Vijayakumar kicked him at his abdomen. Then Ramesh voluntarily took out Rs.320/- from the shirt pocket of Gunasekaran and also removed his wristwatch and all of them tried to escape. Gunasekaran raised hue and cry and the public gathered. Vijayakumar, Sathish and Ganesan took out knives and threatened the public. The detenu Sugumar picked up stones and pelted the same against the public, which stones scattered all over the roadside. The detenu and others, by their acts, created panic situation at the spot, which resulted in traffic dislocation. The Police personnel, who were on patrol duty, noticed the incident and apprehended Vijayakumar, Ganesan, Srinivasan, Ramesh, Sathish and Sugumar. Gunasekaran lodged a complaint in this regard to the Inspector of Police, Crime, G3 Kilpauk Police Station and a case in crime No.108 of 2005 under sections 341, 336, 427, 392 and 506(2) IPC has been registered against the detenu and others. 3. Taking into consideration the above case as ground case and four adverse cases of akin nature, the detaining authority had passed the order of detention on 15.2.2005 terming the detenu as a Goonda, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. 4. Taking into consideration the above case as ground case and four adverse cases of akin nature, the detaining authority had passed the order of detention on 15.2.2005 terming the detenu as a Goonda, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. 4. The core contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the apparent discrepancy as to the date and time of arrest as found in the remand report at page No.82 (at page 85) and the special report found at page No.89, when compared to the statements made by the witnesses and recovery mahazars found at page Nos.5,6,12, 15 and 22 of the paper book, vitiates the order of detention. 5. Concededly, in the statement of witnesses as well as the recovery mahazars at page Nos.5,6,12, 15 and 22, it is found that the detenu was arrested on 3.2.2005. Whereas, the prosecution case is that the detenu was arrested only at the early hours of 4.2.2005 as evident from the remand report and special report found at page Nos.82 (at 85) and 89 respectively. 6. Even though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the statements from the witnesses have been obtained on 3.2.2005 for identifying the accused and the articles, we are unable to agree with the said defence in view of the above vital discrepancy. In spite of the above apparent discrepancy, we are at a loss to understand as to how the detaining authority has passed the detention order. In view of the above we hold that the order of detention is vitiated for non-application of mind. 7. For the above reason, the impugned order of detention-dated 15.2.2005 is vitiated for non-application of mind and accordingly, the same is quashed. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.