TAMIL NADU

High Court quashes detention order

Staff Reporter

MADURAI: The Madras High Court Bench here has quashed a preventive order passed under the Goondas Act against a 19-year-old accused of murdering a youngster and assaulting a woman sub-inspector of police in public view.

Allowing a habeas corpus petition, a Division Bench of Justice M. Chockalingam and Justice R. Mala held that the detention order passed by G. Srinivasan, Collector (in-charge) of Tirunelveli on July 23, 2008 suffered from various infirmities.

The Judges said that the detaining authority’s observation that there was possibility of the detainee being enlarged on bail in the criminal cases pending against him was not substantiated with necessary documents such as bail applications.

Further, there was a delay of one month in submitting the file before the Under Secretary to the Government, the Bench pointed out and said that the delay was unreasonable and detrimental to the interest of the detainee.

According to the prosecution, A. Ramar alias Ramachandran of Kammalankulam of Sethurayanpudur in Tirunelveli was an accused in the murder of a youngster in a case registered by the Manoor police station in June last year.

The Gangaikondan police station had also registered a case against him under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code for threatening a person with deadly weapons and abusing him in filthy language near a liquor shop.

Similarly, on June 23, a woman sub-inspector of police spotted him quarrelling with a passerby near Seevalaperi bus stop. When she attempted to catch him, he attempted to assault her with a bayonet. But she escaped by rolling down the floor.

The detention order also stated that the accused made belittling remarks against the woman police officer and his associates too attempted to assault her.

On seeing this, people ran helter skelter and the nearby shopkeepers pulled down the shutters.

A case under various Sections, including 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC, was registered against him on the basis of a complaint given by the sub-inspector. He was also branded as a goonda for acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order.

Recommended for you