RaniW/o.David v. The State Rep. byThe Inspector of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17-08-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. BANUMATHIH.C.P.NO.26 OF 2007 RaniW/o.David.. PetitionerVs.

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,C-1 Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai.

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Emgore, Chennai 600 008.

The Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for theissuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce thepetitioner’s son N.Napoleon S/o. David, aged about 28 years and nowconfined at Puzhal Central Prison before this Court and set him at libertyforthwith by setting aside the detention order Vide No.321/2006 dated9.12.2006, on the file of the second respondent. For Petitioner: Mr.K. SukumaranFor Respondents: Mr.M. Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public ProsecutorP.K. MISRA, JThe mother of the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petitionchallenging the order of detention dated 9.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, under Section 3(1) read with 3(2) ofthe Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, DrugOffenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, SandOffenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act,1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of1982), hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The order of detention has been passed on the allegation thatthe detenu along with four others was involved in C-1 Flower Bazaar PoliceStation Cr.No.625 of 2006. The date of occurrence of the said case is7.11.2006. It is alleged that offence under Sections 341, 302, 342, 353and 506(2) IPC had been committed. In the grounds of detention, it isnarrated that on the date of occurrence, while John Christopher and Surenderan, Head Constables, were on duty, it was found that one DilliBabu was running from Central Jail towards E.V.R. Road and one Viji @Vijayan, Ramu @ Raman Viji @ Vijayan @ Radio Viji @ Idly Viji, Nepoleonand Suresh, who were armed with patta knives, chased Dilli Babu, whocrossed E.V.R. Road and ran towards police booth. Viji @ Vijayan, Ramu @Raman, Viji @ Vijayan @ Radio Viji @ Idly Viji and Nepoleon surrounded andprevented Dilli Babu from escaping and Viji @ Vijayan @ Radio Viji @ IdlyViji instigated that the person should be killed as he had killed oneVeera.

Immediately, Viji @ Vijayan and Ramu @ Raman cut Dilli Babu withpatta knives. Viji @ Vijayan @ Radio Viji @ Idly Viji cut Dilli Babu overhis head, face, body and hand with the patta knife. Head Constable JohnChristopher raised shouts and ran towards the spot. Dilli Babu fell nearthe police booth. Suresh stood near and prevented Dilli Babu fromescaping. Viji @ Vijayan @ Radio Viji @ Idly Viji and Nepoleon caught holdof the hands of the Head Constable John Christopher, who tried to push andapprehend all the persons. Further, Viji @ Vijayan @ Radio Viji @ IdlyViji asked his associate to cut Dilli Babu till he died. Later they leftthe Head Constable and ran away from the spot. The Head Constable chasedthem along with public, but the culprits threatened them at the point ofknife. The culprits took advantage of the panic situation and escapedfrom the spot. John Christopher, Head Constable along with other HeadConstable Surendran found the name of the injured is Dilli Babu andcontacted C-1 Patrol vehicle and the injured Dilli Babu was taken to General hospital for treatment, but he was declared dead by the DutyDoctor as “brought dead”.

John Christopher, Head Constable, lodgedcomplaint at C-1 Flower Bazaar Police Station on the basis of whichCr.No.625 of 2006 was registered.3. In the grounds of detention, it was indicated: “... The offences under section 341, 342, 353, 302 and 506(2) IPC relates to wrongful restraint, wrongfully confining, useof criminal force to deter public servant from discharging hisduty, murder and criminal intimidation as such punishable underchapters 16 and 17 of the said code. Hence, I am satisfied that Thiru Napoleon is habitually committing crime and also acted ina manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as suchhe is a Goonda as contemplated u/s 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14of 1982. By committing the above described grave crime in thepublic, in front of the busy Railway Station where huge numberof public gathered, in the busy day time has created alarm and afeeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of the area andthereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance ofpublic order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

I am also aware that Thiru Napoleon is in remand in C.1Flower Bazaar Police Station Crime No.625/2006 and he has notmoved any bail application so far. I am also aware that thereis real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bailapplication before Sessions Court or High Court since in similarcases bails are granted by the Sessions Court or High Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further the recourse to normal criminal law would not have thedesired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging insuch activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance ofpublic order. Further the recourse to normal criminal law wouldnot have the desired effect of effectively preventing him fromindulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to themaintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me,I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru Napoleon is a Goondaand that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in orderto prevent him from indulging in such further activities infuture which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public orderunder the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.” 4. The questions raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition aresimilar to the questions raised in H.C.P.No.24 of 2007. The order ofdetention is based on the very same ground case. The contention in thesaid decision to the effect that there was non-application of mind on thepart of the detaining authority regarding the conclusion that the detenuis a “Goonda” since there was no reference to any other past activity isacceptable in the present case. Similarly the contention that thedetaining authority has mechanically come to the conclusion that there waspossibility of being released on bail is based on the mere ipse dixit ofthe detaining authority is also acceptable in the present case. Therefore, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations, we areconstrained to quash the order of detention.

For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order dated9.12.2006 detaining Nepoleon as a Goonda is quashed and he is set atliberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with anyother case.dpkSd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Inspector of Police,C-1 Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Emgore, Chennai 600 008.3. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.5. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai-9.+1 cc to Mr.K.Sukumaran, Advocate Sr.No.51938.NSM(CO)dcp/22.8HCP.NO.26/2007