IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 6.2.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1768 of 2007 V.Udaiyammal .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai. 3. The Inspector of Police S-5, Pallavaram Police Station Pallavaram Chennai-43. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenu-Vairavan, husband of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the wife of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the second respondent in No.410/BDFGISSV/2007, dated 29.11.2007, to quash the same and to produce the detenu, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 3.1. The order of detention dated 29.11.2007 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No.639 of 2007 on the file of Pallavaram Police Station for alleged commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 307 IPC, complaint of which was lodged by one Gurunathan. According to the complainant, on 27.10.2007 at about 1230 hours, when he along with his friend Govindaraj were travelling in the motor cycle, a Scorpio Car bearing registration No.TN 22 BC 4777 came fast and stopped in front of their motor cycle. The detenu and others armed with patta knives got down from the said car. The associates of the detenu and the detenu cut the friend of the complainant all over the body. The complainant tried to escape and as he dashed another motor cycle and fell down, he raised hue and cry. The detenu hearing the cry of the complainant rushed to cut him and as the complainant warded off the attack, the knife fell over his right hand thumb finger and it was cut into pieces. The public who were at the spot heard the hue and cry and gathered at the spot. The detenu and his associates threatened them at knife point. The public, noticing the atrocious activities, ran for safer places out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. The complainant escaped from the spot and rushed to the Police Station, where he lodged a complaint based on which a case, as referred to above, was registered, the detenu was arrested and remanded. 3.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of an adverse case pending against the detenu, viz., Crime No.495 of 2007 on the file of Pallavaram Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 506(2) IPC. 3.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. We have perused the materials produced before us. 5. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is that the detaining authority while passing the order of detention has taken into consideration extraneous matters into consideration, viz., the arrest of the associate of the detenu - Venkatesan @ Chilla Venkatesan and the offences he committed, to which the detenu has no direct or indirect connection of participation and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. 6. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the ground case was registered in Crime No.639 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 307 IPC. But, the detaining authority, after referring to the arrest of the detenu, referred to the arrest of the associate of the detenu by name Venkatesan @ Chilla Venkatesan with regard to a case in Crime No.671 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 394 read with 397, 427 and 506(2) IPC, to which the detenu has no direct or indirect connection of participation. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority after referring to extraneous matters, to which the detenu has no direct or indirect connection of participation cannot be, in our considered opinion, said to be in exercise of power known to law and such action cannot be termed as action in accordance with law and therefore, the detention order is vitiated. For the reason aforesaid, the detention order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. This petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required connection with in any other crime. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. sasi To: 1.The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department State of Tamilnadu Fort St.George, Chennai-9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai. 3.The Inspector of Police S-5, Pallavaram Police Station Pallavaram Chennai-43. 4.The Joint Secretary to the Government, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort st. George, Chennai -9 5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 6.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. JRG(CO) RP 28.02.08 H.C.P.No.1768 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/