@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P. Sathasivam, J.@mdashThe petitioner, by name Sekar @ Chandrasekar @ Chinna Kanagu, who is 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 13.09.2005, challenges the
same in this Petition.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the arrest of the detenu was not intimated to any one in his family. For this,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor has brought to our notice that the detenu''s wife by name Shanthi was intimated about his arrest on the same
day. Page 137 of the paper book supplied to the detenu supports the stand of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, we reject
the first contention.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the remand order dated 29.08.2005, contended that the detenu
was beaten up by the police at the time of his arrest and though the same was duly noted by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,
Chennai, the said aspect was not considered by the detaining authority. With regard to the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed
out that the detaining authority has considered the said aspect, which is evident from paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention. At the end of the
said paragraph, the detaining authority has stated that he has gone through the remand order dated 29.08.2005 issued by the XVII Metropolitan
Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015 and also noted the statement of the detenu that he was beaten by the police on his hand. The detaining
authority has also noted that the learned Magistrate did not record the presence of any injury on the hand of the detenu and remanded him to
judicial custody till 12.09.2005. The detaining authority has also stated that a perusal of records revealed that the detenu was arrested only on
28.08.2005 at 20.00 hours at Reddy Kuppam Road and Govindan Road junction and he was not beaten by the police and no injury was noted by
the learned Magistrate also. A perusal of the details given in paragraph 2 of the order shows that the detaining authority was aware of the claim
made by the detenu and after verifying the records and finding that the learned Magistrate has not noted any injury as claimed by the detenu,
merely remanded him to judicial custody till 12.09.2005. We are satisfied that the detaining authority has considered all the relevant aspects,
including the allegation made by the accused/detenu and reject the second contention also.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the sponsoring authority has foisted the ground case, which said to have
taken place on 28.08.2005 and according to her, the detention is not warranted. In the light of the submission, we have verified the details
available in the grounds of detention. It shows that the detenu was involved in four cases for various offences. It further shows that the first two
cases ended in conviction and his remand period was set off and the other two cases are at the investigation stage. If we consider all the four
adverse cases and the ground case, it cannot be claimed that the detaining authority was not possessed of the relevant material for passing the
impugned order of detention. We are satisfied that the detaining authority, after taking note of the adverse cases, the past conduct of the detenu
and the ground occurrence and after satisfying himself that the presence of the detenu will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed
the impugned order of detention. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.
6. Finally, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the fact that the detenu has not moved any bail application,
particularly on the date of passing of the detention order, the detaining authority had arrived at a conclusion that there is imminent possibility of the
detenu coming out on bail. It is not in dispute that there is no bar in filing the bail application at any time. In such circumstances, taking note of the
fact that if the detenu files a bail petition and if bail is granted by the Sessions Court or High Court and if he comes out on bail, it will be prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order, the detaining authority, after satisfying himself, passed the detention order. The said conclusion cannot also be
faulted with.
7. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same
is dismissed.
