R. Bakkiyammal, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 19-08-2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM H.C.P.No.701 of 2016 R.Bakkiyammal ...
Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
...
Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the Detention Order in D.O.No.07/2016-C2, dated 14.02.2016, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and directing the respondents to produce the corpus of the detenu namely Gopal @ Gandhi @ Rajagopal, S/o.Ranganathan, residing at No.84, Vallarasu Nagar, Nochimalai Village, Kilnachipattu Post, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District (now detained in Central Prison, Vellore) before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For petitioner : Mr.S.Kumara Devan For respondents: Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, Additional Public Prosecutor.
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.Nagamuthu,J.) Petitioner is the mother of one Mr.Gopal @ Gandhi @ Rajagopal, aged 28 years, son of Ranganathan, who has been detained under Act 14 of 1982, on the orders of the second
respondent, by his proceedings in D.O.No.07/2016-C2, dated 14.02.2016, branding him as a Goonda. Challenging the said order of detention, the petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents; and also perused the materials carefully.
3. This is a case, where the detenu is involved in a case under Sections 498-A and 304(B) IPC read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Harassment of Women Act and yet another case under Sections 363, 323, 506 (ii) and 376 read with 392 IPC.
4. So far as the facts of the latter case are concerned, it is alleged that the de facto complainant was waiting in a bus stand for a bus; at that time, the detenu, along with another person, came in an autorikshaw, stopped the same by the side of the de facto complainant under the guise of asking her as to whether the road would lead to Kallakurichi, and when she answered in the negative, they suddenly pushed her into the autorikshaw brandished with a knife, took her to a teak wood farm, tied her legs and hands using her saree, raped her repeatedly and stole the gold jewels, worn by her. The detaining authority, from these facts, and the facts involved in the former case, has come to the conclusion that the detenue is a Goonda.
5. In this Habeas Corpus Petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the material objects recovered in connection with the cases were sent to the Court after a long delay and, on this ground, according to the learned counsel, the detention order is vitiated. But, we are unable to agree with the said argument. Whether the properties were sent on time to the Court or not and if they have been really sent with a delay, what was the explanation for the same, are all the matters to be gone into by the trial Court, where the detenue is going to face the trial.
6. So far as this Habeas Corpus Petition is concerned, what we are required to see is, whether there was nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority; whether the detenu is a Goonda; whether there is a likelihood of imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and whether he could not be dealt with under the ordinary law to prevent him from committing the crimes. These relevant materials have been rightly considered and concluded by the detaining authority with full satisfaction, by application of mind.
7. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this Habeas Corpus Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. -s/dAssitant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar dixit To 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Vellore H.C.P.No.701 OF 2016 aa09/09/2016