IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.01.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1619 of 2007 Baskar @ Elumbu Baskar .. Petitioner Vs 1.State, rep. by the Secretary to Govt., Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar For Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner, who was incarcerated at Central Prison, Vellore, by order dated 17.10.2007 of the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a Goonda, seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the said order of detention made in proceedings No.395/2007, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and set at liberty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.1. The impugned order of detention came to be passed based on the ground case registered in P.2 Otteri Police Station Crime No.607 of 2007 for offences under Sections 341, 332, 336, 427, 385, 307 and 506(2) IPC, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Munusamy. According to the complainant, who is running a mobile canteen, on 21.8.2007, the detenu and another came to his canteen and took tiffin without paying money and also demanded Rs.700/- as mamool and when refused, they also rushed to cut him with a knife, due to which he sustained bleeding injury. When the detenu and another, attempted to flee from the spot by threatening the public, who tried to apprehend them, with the knife and hurling soda bottles and thus, creating terror and panic situation, the police personnel with the help of the public apprehended them at the spot and retrieved the knife. The detenu and his associate were later sent to Court for judicial remand. 2.2.The Detaining Authority taking note of the above ground case as well as three adverse cases, two on the file of the same police station, in Crime Nos.382/2007 and 604/2007 for offences under Sections 399, 341, 392 and 506(2) IPC and one on the file of P.4 Basin Bridge Police Station Crime No.366/2007 for offences under Sections 341, 392 and 506(2) IPC and having satisfied that there is compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the impugned detention order on him. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention on the ground of non consideration of the specific plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/detenu in the representation dated 29.10.2007 alleging that the detenu was taken by the police even on 18.8.2007 and not on 21.8.2007, as mentioned in the detention order, by the Government while rejecting the representation in the rejection order dated 23.11.2007. 4. We have perused the entire materials placed before us. Even though in the grounds of detention, it was stated that the detenu was arrested on 21.8.2007 with respect to the ground case, in the representation made by the learned counsel on behalf of the detenu dated 29.10.2007, he had specifically stated that the detenu was taken on 18.8.2007 itself by the Police and was kept under their custody and thereafter, a false case was foisted against him. However, the first respondent, while passing the order of rejection https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 23.11.2007 rejecting the representation dated 29.10.2007, had not considered the contention raised by the learned counsel as to the date of arrest of the detenu. 5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Government had not taken note of the above fact, which vitiates the order of detention. Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. sra Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Secretary to Government (Home), Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Vellore. 4.The Joint secretary, Public Law and Order Department, Fort St George, Chennai-9. 5. Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. KG (co) sg 22/01/08 H.C.P.No.1619 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/