Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 518 (MAD)

D. Latha v. The Inspector of Police & Others

2006-02-28

J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR, P.SATHASIVAM

body2006
Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the detention order No.480/2005 dated 29.09.2005 passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's husband viz., Desingu Raja @ Desingu, aged about 33 years, now confined in Central Prison, Chennai-3 as TPDA No.6392 before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) 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. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Except the above said contention, no other point has been urged. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.