@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Arunachalam, J.@mdashPetitioner, Gubendran alies Guben has been detained as a goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dated 17.7.1995, passed by the second Respondent, Commissioner of Police, Madras City, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
2. This habeas corpus Petition will have to be allowed on the short ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and hence it will be unnecessary to detail the facts, which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention.
3. In the grounds of detention, in paragraph 3, the Detaining Authority has stated that the detenu was arrested by the police party. However, when the detenu attempted to escape from their clutches, he fell down and due to such fall, he sustained an injury on his head. However, the paper-book supplied to the detenu, at pages 102 and 116, gives a totally different picture. In page 102, we have the statement recorded from Dr. Sukumar, Government Hospital, Kilpauk, by the investigating officer. The said Doctor had examined Gubendran, the detenu herein, at 1:30 p.m. on 13-7-1995, the date of occurrence. The detenu had told him that he was attacked by a known person on his head and left hand. The Medical Officer found injuries on him and he issued a copy of accident register to substantiate the injuries found on the detenu. At page 116, we have the accident register issued by the medical officer, which also shows that the detenu had sustained injuries found on him at 12:00 noon on 13-7-1995 due to attack by unknown person. Two injuries, one on the vertex region and the other on the left hand, had been noted.4. It is clear that the Detaining Authority has stated that the injuries sustained by the detenu were due to his falling down, when he was attempted to be apprehended. The paper book supplied would go to show an altogether different picture, as if the detenu was attacked by a known person. It is easily possible to hold that either there has been non-application of mind, or the Detaining Authority had relied upon extraneous material not supplied to the detenu. Eitherway, the detenu is bound to succeed.
5. Impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise required. This habeas corpus petition is allowed.
