2021 Supreme(Mad) 2343
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, G. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
R. Ponrani - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City & Others - Respondents
H.C.P. (MD) No. 488 of 2021
Decided on : 18-11-2021
For the Appellant :G. Karuppasamy Pandian, Na. Manimaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents: S. Ravi, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 294(b), 307, 341, 302 and 392 - Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 - Section 2(f) – Habeas Corpus - Drugs - One aged about 25 years, son said one was detained by first respondent, terming him as a Goonda as defined under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 vide impugned order - Sister of detenu has moved this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records pertaining to proceedings of the first respondent made in No.24/BCDFGISSSV/2021, dated 07.03.2021, quash the same and set the detenu at liberty – Held, One of contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel is that detaining authority has applied pick and choose method to slap detention order - This Court is of the view that out of 12 accused, detention order has been passed only against four accused in this case, since their antecedents and association are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and peace - Therefore, out of 12 accused persons, only for four accused persons, preventive detention order has been passed - This clearly shows that detaining authority has applied his mind and only in rarest of rare cases, where the very presence of persons in Society will create disturbance, preventive detention order has been passed and not against every one indiscriminately - This Court is of the view that detention order has been passed after due consideration of the records and on application of mind - There is no substantial reason to interfere in well-reasoned order of detention - Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records in detention order No.24/BCDFGISSSV/2021, dated 07.03.2021, on the file of the first respondent herein, set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's brother Dineshkumar @ Thoothukudi Dinesh, Male, aged 25 years (now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai), before this Court and set him at liberty.)
1. Dineshkumar @ Thoothukudi Dinesh, aged about 25 years, son of Suyambu, was detained by the first respondent, terming him as a Goonda as defined under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982], vide impugned order dated 07.03.2021. The sister of the detenu has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent made in No.24/BCDFGISSSV/2021, dated 07.03.2021, quash the same and set the detenu at liberty.
2. The grounds of detention indicates that on 15.11.2020 one Muruganandam, son of Panchavarnam was found dead head severed from body near St. Mary's Church Compound, Madurai. In this regard, an F.I.R. in Crime No.1166 of 2020 under Sections 307, 341 and 302 of I.P.C. was registered based on the complaint given by the mother of the deceased Muruganandam. The investigation unraveled that the murder of Muruganandam is a sequel of earlier crime occurred in the year 2019, wherein one M.S.Pandi was done to death by Manikandan @ Chinna Vayithalai and his associates due to previous enmity. The said Manikandan @ Chinna Vayithalai, who is the prime accused in M.S.Pandi's murder case, was released on bail and stayed at the house of one Cent Muniyasamy. To wreak vengeance for the murder of M.S.Pandi, his brother-inlaw V.K.Gurusamy arranged for surveillance of Manikandan @ Chinna Vayithalai, so that they can finish him off at the appropriate time. In the said pursuit of crime, it appears that Muruganandam has helped V.K.Gurusamy and his associates. Knowing about this, Manikandan @ Chinna Vayithalai group had arranged Bavu @ Palanimurugan and Eli Dinesh @ Nondi Dinesh and followed the movements of Manikandan @ Chinna Vayithalai. On 15.11.2020 when Muruganandam and Eli Dinesh @ Nondi Dinesh came to St. Mary's Church in a two wheeler, Eli Dinesh @ Nondi Dinesh left Muruganandam there and moved. Soon thereafter, Alex @ Chinna Alex @ Alex Pandian, Bavu @ Palanimurugan, Alaguraja @ Kottu Raja, Raja @ Undiyal Raja and the detenu Dineshkumar @ Thoothukudi Dinesh came in a Indica Car with deadly weapons and attacked the said Muruganandam and severed the head Muruganandam and throw it at the gate of St. Mary's Church. A case was registered against the detenu and others for the offences under Sections 307, 341 and 302 of I.P.C., which was altered into Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 307, 341 and 302 of I.P.C. Subsequently also, the Section of law was altered into Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 294(b), 307, 341, 302 and 392 of I.P.C. read with Section 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
3. The detaining authority having gone through the papers, had found that the murder of Muruganandam is the sequence of earlier murder of M.S.Pandi and the gang war between two groups has led to disturbance of public peace and retaliatory murders. All the accused persons, who were involved in Muruganandam's murder case, arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The application for bail filed on behalf of the detenu in the above said case was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.2998 of 2020 on 15.12.2020, whereas conditional