{"id":178280,"date":"2007-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007"},"modified":"2014-12-06T16:23:43","modified_gmt":"2014-12-06T10:53:43","slug":"anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Anjali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Anjali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                      DATED: 22-1-2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA\n                             and\n            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM\n                              \n\n Habeas Corpus Petition Nos.1022,2023,2024 and 1025 of 2006\n                              \n\n\nAnjali                    ..Petitioner in H.C.P.No.1022\/2006\n\nManjula                  ..Petitioner in H.C.P.No.1023\/2006\n\nEaswari                  ..Petitioner in H.C.P.No.1024\/2006\n\nPadmavathy               ..Petitioner in H.C.P.No.1025\/2006\n\n\n                         ..vs..\n\n\nThe Secretary to the Government\nProhibition and Excise Dept.,\nSecretariat\nChennai 600 009\n\nThe Commissioner of Police\nGreater Chennai\nEgmore, Chennai 600 008  .. Respondents in H.C.P.Nos.1022,\n                            1023, 1024 and 1025 of 2006\n\n\n      H.C.P.No.1022\/2006  filed under  Article  226  of  the\nConstitution  of India, praying for issuance of  a  writ  of\nHabeas  Corpus   to call for the records in connection  with\nthe  order  of detention passed by the 2nd respondent  dated\n16.9.2006   in   Memo   No.251\/BDFGISSV\/2006   against   the\npetitioner's  husband, Perumal S\/o Karuppan  aged  about  33\nyears  who  is confined at Central Prison, Chennai  and  set\naside  the  same  and direct the respondent to  produce  the\ndetenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.\n\n      H.C.P.No.1023\/2006  filed under  Article  226  of  the\nConstitution  of India, praying for issuance of  a  writ  of\nHabeas  Corpus   to call for the records in connection  with\nthe  order  of detention passed by the 2nd respondent  dated\n16.9.2006   in   Memo   No.249\/BDFGISSV\/2006   against   the\npetitioner's husband, Vinayagam S\/o Elumalai aged  about  33\nyears  who  is confined at Central Prison, Chennai  and  set\naside  the  same  and direct the respondent to  produce  the\ndetenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.\n\n      H.C.P.No.1024\/2006  filed under  Article  226  of  the\nConstitution  of India, praying for issuance of  a  writ  of\nHabeas  Corpus   to call for the records in connection  with\nthe  order  of detention passed by the 2nd respondent  dated\n16.9.2006   in   Memo   No.252\/BDFGISSV\/2006   against   the\npetitioner's  husband, Banraj S\/o Subramani  aged  about  33\nyears  who  is confined at Central Prison, Chennai  and  set\naside  the  same  and direct the respondent to  produce  the\ndetenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.\n\n      H.C.P.No.1025\/2006  filed under  Article  226  of  the\nConstitution  of India, praying for issuance of  a  writ  of\nHabeas  Corpus   to call for the records in connection  with\nthe  order  of detention passed by the 2nd respondent  dated\n16.9.2006   in   Memo   No.250\/BDFGISSV\/2006   against   the\npetitioner's  husband, Sathish S\/o Elumalai  aged  about  23\nyears  who  is confined at Central Prison, Chennai  and  set\naside  the  same  and direct the respondent to  produce  the\ndetenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.\n\n     For petitioner in H.C.P.Nos.1022\n     1023, 1024 and 1025\/2006  :     Mr.Ezhil Caroline\n\n     For respondents in H.C.P.Nos.1022\n     1023, 1024 and 1025\/2006  :     Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran,\n                                    Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n                              \n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\t(Order of the Court was made by P.K.MISRA,J.)<\/p>\n
     Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.<\/p>\n
     2.   The four H.C.P.Nos.1022\/2006 to 1026 of 2006 filed<\/p>\n
on  behalf of the four detenus were heard together  and  are<\/p>\n
being  disposed  of  by  this  common  order  as  the  basic<\/p>\n
allegations are common.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The  orders  of preventive detention  have  been<\/p>\n
passed  in respect of each detenu on 16.9.2006 under Section<\/p>\n
3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of<\/p>\n
Bootleggers,  Drug  Offenders,  Forest  Offenders,  Goondas,<\/p>\n
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and<\/p>\n
Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).  In the<\/p>\n
grounds  of detention it is indicated that these two persons<\/p>\n
along  with  several others have committed  a  murder  as  a<\/p>\n
retaliation  on  10.8.2006. On the basis of this  allegation<\/p>\n
Crime  No.707\/2006 on the file of Periayamedu police station<\/p>\n
has been registered along with several others under Sections<\/p>\n
147, 148, 341, 307, 302 and 506(2) I.P.C.  Subsequently, the<\/p>\n
two  detenus  were  in custody and remand orders  have  been<\/p>\n
passed  from  time  to  time.  On the basis  of  such  basic<\/p>\n
allegation,  the  detaining  authority  has  come   to   the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the detenus thereafter,<\/p>\n
           “….  along  with his associates  committed<\/p>\n
     brutal  murder in the public road without allowing<\/p>\n
     the law to take its own course, has taken law into<\/p>\n
     his  hands without respecting the judicial  system<\/p>\n
     which  has  sent wrong signals to all law  abiding<\/p>\n
     citizens  and  he  has  also  acted  in  a  manner<\/p>\n
     prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and<\/p>\n
     as  such  he  is  a  Goonda as contemplated  under<\/p>\n
     Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.  By<\/p>\n
     committing the above described grave murder in the<\/p>\n
     public in a busy residential cum business area, in<\/p>\n
     the  busy day time, at the centre of Chennai City,<\/p>\n
     he  has  created alarm and a feeling of insecurity<\/p>\n
     in the minds of the people of the area and thereby<\/p>\n
     acted  in  a manner prejudicial to the maintenance<\/p>\n
     of public order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.    The  learned  counsel for  the  petitioners  has<\/p>\n
submitted that the grounds of detention did not indicate the<\/p>\n
alleged involvement of the detenus in any other crime except<\/p>\n
the   crime  alleged  to  have  been  committed   in   Crime<\/p>\n
No.707\/2006.   In other words,  the orders of detention  are<\/p>\n
passed only on a single incident indicated in the grounds of<\/p>\n
detention  and  there  is  no  allegation  of  his   alleged<\/p>\n
involvement  in any other case on any earlier occasion.   In<\/p>\n
the   above   background,  the  learned  counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioners   invited  our  attention  for  the   provisions<\/p>\n
contained  in  the  Act.  Section 2(f) of  the  Act  defines<\/p>\n
`goonda’ in the following terms.\n<\/p>\n
           `(f)”goonda” means a person, who  either  by<\/p>\n
     himself  or  as a member of or leader of  a  gang,<\/p>\n
     habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets<\/p>\n
     the   commission  of  offences,  punishable  under<\/p>\n
     Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the<\/p>\n
     Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  (Central  Act  XIV  of<\/p>\n
     1860).’<\/p>\n
     Section 2(1)(a)(iii) is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           `(iii)in the case of a goondas, when  he  is<\/p>\n
     engaged,  or is making preparations for  engaging,<\/p>\n
     in  any of his activities as a goonda which affect<\/p>\n
     adversely, or are likely to affect adversely,  the<\/p>\n
     maintenance of public order;’<\/p>\n
      5.   The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted<\/p>\n
that  before  passing the orders of detention under  Section<\/p>\n
3(1),  the  detaining authority is required to be  satisfied<\/p>\n
that  the  person  to be detained is a `goonda’  as  defined<\/p>\n
under  the  Act.   As per the definition clause  itself,   a<\/p>\n
person  can  be  described as a `goonda’  if  he  habitually<\/p>\n
commits,  or  attempts to commit or abets the commission  of<\/p>\n
offences  punishable under Chapter XVI or  Chapter  XVII  or<\/p>\n
Chapter  XXII  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860.   It  is<\/p>\n
submitted by him that by no stretch of imagination a  person<\/p>\n
who  is  alleged to have committed an offence for the  first<\/p>\n
time can be described as a person who habitually commits, or<\/p>\n
attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences.  The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners therefore submitted that<\/p>\n
the  orders  of detention have been passed by the  authority<\/p>\n
without application of mind regarding provisions of the  Act<\/p>\n
and as such they have been passed mechanically and they have<\/p>\n
to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.    In  support  of  such contentions,  the  learned<\/p>\n
counsel  for  the  petitioners  places  reliance  upon   the<\/p>\n
decision  of  the Supreme Court reported in JT 2006  SC  69.<\/p>\n
(R.KALAVATHI  V.  THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU  AND  ORS.)   Such<\/a><\/p>\n
decision of the Supreme Court arose out of an appeal against<\/p>\n
an  order passed by the Division Bench of this Court.  There<\/p>\n
the person was detained by invoking the very same provision.<\/p>\n
There  was  no  allegation  that the  detenu  was  allegedly<\/p>\n
involved  in any other offence except the case on the  basis<\/p>\n
of   which  the  detention  order  was  passed.    In   such<\/p>\n
background,  the  Supreme  Court  set  aside  the  order  of<\/p>\n
dismissal passed by the High Court and directed the  release<\/p>\n
of  such persons.  The Supreme Court in course of discussion<\/p>\n
has observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “10.A bare reading of the provision makes the<\/p>\n
     position clear that in order to attract action  in<\/p>\n
     terms of Section 3(1) of the Act, the detenu  must<\/p>\n
     be  one who is a “Goonda” as defined under Section<\/p>\n
     2(f)  of  the  Act.  Though  in  other  preventive<\/p>\n
     detention  laws, even a single act which  has  the<\/p>\n
     propensity  of affecting even tempo  of  life  and<\/p>\n
     public   tranquility  would  be   sufficient   for<\/p>\n
     detention,  being  prejudicial to  maintenance  of<\/p>\n
     public  order.   For the purpose of  the  Act  the<\/p>\n
     detenu  has  to  be  a “Goonda” as  defined  under<\/p>\n
     Section 2(f) of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            13.The  expression  “habitually”  is   very<\/p>\n
     significant.   A person is said to be  a  habitual<\/p>\n
     criminal   who  by  force  of  habit   or   inward<\/p>\n
     disposition  is accustomed to commit  crimes.   It<\/p>\n
     implies  commission of such crimes  repeatedly  or<\/p>\n
     persistently  and  prima  facie  there  should  be<\/p>\n
     continuity    in   the   commission    of    those<\/p>\n
     offences.(See:  Ayub  alias  Pappukhan   Nawabkhan<\/p>\n
     Pathan v. S.N.Sinha).<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            14.From   one  single  transaction   though<\/p>\n
     consisting  of  several acts, a  habit  cannot  be<\/p>\n
     attributed to a person.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          15.Judged in the background of legal position<\/p>\n
     delineated above the order of detention cannot  be<\/p>\n
     maintained  because  it only refers  to  one  act.<\/p>\n
     There   is  also  no  materials  to  justify   the<\/p>\n
     conclusion   that  the  accused   was   habitually<\/p>\n
     committing  crime.  There is no reference  to  any<\/p>\n
     other  crime.   Therefore, the order of  detention<\/p>\n
     cannot  be  maintained.  The High  Court  has  not<\/p>\n
     considered  this aspect in the proper perspective.<\/p>\n
     The  order  of detention in respect of the  detenu<\/p>\n
     which  was  passed by the Commissioner of  Police,<\/p>\n
     Chennai on 1.8.2005 is quashed.  The order of  the<\/p>\n
     High  Court is set aside.  Detenu be released from<\/p>\n
     detention   forthwith  unless   required   to   be<\/p>\n
     otherwise detained.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/p>\n
      7.    In  our  considered opinion, the  ratio  of  the<\/p>\n
aforesaid  decision is squarely applicable to the  facts  of<\/p>\n
the  present case.  In view of the definition clause and  in<\/p>\n
view  of the specific provision, it is obvious that a person<\/p>\n
cannot be detained as `Goonda’ unless there is allegation of<\/p>\n
his  involvement  in  more than one  offences  on  different<\/p>\n
occasions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.    The  learned  counsel  for  the  State  however<\/p>\n
submitted  by referring to several decisions of the  Supreme<\/p>\n
Court  that an order of detention can be passed  even  on  a<\/p>\n
single incident.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9.    It  is not necessary to refer to those decisions<\/p>\n
because those decisions were in response to other preventive<\/p>\n
detention  laws  where there was no such definition.   As  a<\/p>\n
matter  of  fact, this aspect has also been noticed  by  the<\/p>\n
Supreme  Court in the decision reported in JT 2006  page  69<\/p>\n
where in para 10 it was noticed as follows:<\/p>\n
     “10….Though in other preventive detention  laws,<\/p>\n
     even  a  single  act which has the  propensity  of<\/p>\n
     affecting   even   tempo  of   life   and   public<\/p>\n
     tranquility  would  be sufficient  for  detention,<\/p>\n
     being  prejudicial to maintenance of public order.<\/p>\n
     For the purpose of the Act the detenu has to be  a<\/p>\n
     “Goonda”  as  defined under Section  2(f)  of  the<\/p>\n
     Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/p>\n
      10.   The  learned  counsel for the State  has  placed<\/p>\n
reliance  upon  an  unreported decision  of  this  Court  in<\/p>\n
H.C.P.Nos.457  to  461  of  2006 disposed  of  on  11.7.2006<\/p>\n
wherein,  the  order of detention passed  on  the  basis  of<\/p>\n
single  incident has been upheld on the ground that a single<\/p>\n
incident  also  can cause disturbance of public  order.   In<\/p>\n
view  of the specific decision of the Supreme Court,  it  is<\/p>\n
obvious  that  the Division Bench decision  dated  11.7.2006<\/p>\n
cannot  be followed.  The decision of the Supreme Court  was<\/p>\n
not  brought to the notice of the Division Bench  while  the<\/p>\n
matter  was  decided.   It is of course  true  in  the  said<\/p>\n
Division  Bench decision reliance has been placed  upon  the<\/p>\n
earlier  Division Bench decision of this Court  reported  in<\/p>\n
1993  LAW  WEEKLY  CRIMINAL  113  (SUBBAIAH  @  THIRUVOTIYUR<\/p>\n
SUBBAIYAH 2 MAHADEVAN VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE  MADRAS<\/p>\n
CITY  AND  ANOTHER).  However, on going through the  earlier<\/p>\n
decision  we  find that in the earlier case, there  was  one<\/p>\n
adverse  case  and thereafter, one ground case  and  in  the<\/p>\n
above  context the Division Bench had upheld  the  order  of<\/p>\n
detention.  The earlier Division Bench decision is therefore<\/p>\n
clearly distinguishable on facts.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      11.   In connection with H.C.P.Nos.1023 and 1024\/2006,<\/p>\n
the  learned counsel for the State has also stated  that  in<\/p>\n
the grounds of detention there is reference to the fact that<\/p>\n
the  two  detenus involved in the said cases  were  habitual<\/p>\n
offenders  and therefore they must be taken to be  `goondas’<\/p>\n
within  the meaning of the Act.  In the grounds of detention<\/p>\n
it  is  indicated that the detenu “….is an history sheeted<\/p>\n
rowdy  element.”   Unfortunately, however,  along  with  the<\/p>\n
grounds  of detention, no such “history”  had been furnished<\/p>\n
to  the  detenus.   If  there were materials  against  these<\/p>\n
detenus  that they were involved in any other case and  were<\/p>\n
“history sheeters” obviously, the details relating to  those<\/p>\n
cases should have been furnished to the detenus in order  to<\/p>\n
enable  them  to  make any effective representation.  Merely<\/p>\n
reciting  in  the  grounds of detention  without  furnishing<\/p>\n
necessary details cannot be accepted as sufficient  to  come<\/p>\n
to  the  conclusion  that those two detenus  were  `goondas’<\/p>\n
within the meaning of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12.  It is of course true that the background in which<\/p>\n
the offence was committed appears to be very serious and the<\/p>\n
alleged  murder which took place in a busy day  light  is  a<\/p>\n
case  of retaliation.  However, since the provisions of  the<\/p>\n
Act  is  not  applicable, we are constrained to  quash  such<\/p>\n
orders of detention under Act 14\/82.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      13.   All  the  four Habeas Corpus Petition  Nos.1022,<\/p>\n
1023,  1024  and  1025\/2006  are accordingly  allowed.   The<\/p>\n
impugned  orders of detention are quashed.  The detenus  are<\/p>\n
directed  to  be  set  at  liberty  forthwith  unless  their<\/p>\n
presence is required in connection with any other case.<\/p>\n
sal<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary to the Government
\nProhibition and Excise Dept.,
\nSecretariat
\nChennai 600 009<\/p>\n
2.The Commissioner of Police
\nGreater Chennai
\nEgmore, Chennai 600 008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Anjali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-1-2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM Habeas Corpus Petition Nos.1022,2023,2024 and 1025 of 2006 Anjali ..Petitioner in H.C.P.No.1022\/2006 Manjula ..Petitioner in H.C.P.No.1023\/2006 Easwari ..Petitioner in H.C.P.No.1024\/2006 Padmavathy […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178280","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnjali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anjali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-06T10:53:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anjali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-06T10:53:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1789,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Anjali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-06T10:53:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anjali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anjali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anjali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-06T10:53:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anjali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-06T10:53:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007"},"wordCount":1789,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007","name":"Anjali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-06T10:53:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjali-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-22-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anjali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 22 January, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178280","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=178280"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178280\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}