{"id":96656,"date":"2003-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003"},"modified":"2018-12-28T15:39:13","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T10:09:13","slug":"s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"S. Arumuga Devar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S. Arumuga Devar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 30\/04\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN\n\nHabeas Corpus Petition No.2183 of 2002\n\nS. Arumuga Devar                               ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by\n   the Secretary to Government,\n   Prohibition & Excise Department,\n   Fort St. George,\n   Chennai-600 009.\n\n2. The District Magistrate and\n     District Collector,\n   Erode District, Erode.                       ..  Respondents\n\nPRAYER :  Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  seeking  to\nissue  a  Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  calling  for  the  records relating to the\ndetention order passed by the second  respondent  in  Cr.M.P.    No.15\/2002\/C1\ndated 10.5.2002, set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to\nproduce the body of the detenu Sankarapandi, S\/o.  Arumuga Devar, now detained\nin  the Central Prison, Coimbatore before this Honourable Court and set him at\nliberty forthwith.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.  C.  Kathiravan\n\n^For Respondents :  Mr.  A.  Navaneethakrishnan,\n                Addl.  Public Prosecutor.\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
P.  SHANMUGAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
                Petitioner, the  father   of   one   Thiru.      Sankarapandi,
\nhereinafter  referred  to  as  the  detenu,  has filed the above Habeas Corpus
\nPetition.  The detenu had been branded as ‘Goonda’ and an order  of  detention
\nhad  been  passed  against  him  by  the  second respondent on 10.5.2002 under
\nSection 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.  The H.C.P.  is filed against  this
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      The  detenu  was involved in a criminal case in Tiruppur North
\nPolice Station Crime No.316 of 2992 dated 21.2.2002 registered under  Sections
\n120(b),  341,  342,  347, 365, 368, 307, 396, 397, 506(ii) read with 34 I.P.C.
\nAs per  the  said  case,  the  detenu,  along  with  his  associates,  at  the
\ninstigation of  one  Chinnasamy,  threatened  one  Thiru.  Muthuvel @ Kumar by
\nplacing a knife on his neck and forcing him to take brandy mixed with  tablets
\nand  when  he  was in an intoxicated condition, further threatened him that he
\nwould be taken to Chennai, confined there and killed by pouring petrol on  him
\nand  thereby,  he  had extracted a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from the victim and also
\nthreatened that if he informed about this incident to the police, he  and  his
\nfamily members would be killed.  The said case is under investigation.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      While  so,  the detenu is alleged to have been involved in the
\nground case, the facts of which case are stated hereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
        The complainant Thiru.  V.  Palanisamy is the owner  of  a  number  of
\nbusiness establishments  at  Tiruppur under the name and style of ‘J.V.  Group
\nCompanies’ and he is  having  a  spinning  mill  in  the  name  and  style  of
\n‘Jayavarma Textiles  Private  Limited’  at  Ketticheviyur.    According to the
\ncomplainant, on 6.2.2002, while he was returning to Tiruppur from the  textile
\nmill   at   about   1900   hours   in  his  Lancer  car  bearing  Registration
\nNo.TN-39-X-5455, about  three  kilometers  away  from  his  textile  mill,  he
\nreceived  a  cellphone  call  from his elder brother and as he could not get a
\nclear connection, he halted his car, got down from the  car  and  was  talking
\nover the  cellphone.   At that time, a TATA SUMO Jeep came from north to south
\non that road, overtook his car and after crossing some distance, returned back
\ntowards his car, crossed his car and then came on reverse  and  parked  it  in
\nsuch a way as touching his car.  When Palanisamy instructed his driver to take
\nthe  car  as  the jeep was about to dash against his car, six persons got down
\nfrom the jeep and at the same time, another jeep came from south to  north  on
\nthe  road and parked it across the road in front of his car which was about to
\nstart.  All these persons joined together and dragged the driver from the  car
\nand forced him to the rear of his car.  They occupied his car, the complainant
\nwas placed  between them and after turning on the C.D.  Player on high volume,
\nthey sped the car towards the south.  He  was  blind-folded  and  the  vehicle
\ntravelled  for  nearly  three  hours  and  at  about  10 pm, he was taken to a
\nthatched shed.  There, they removed the cloth from his eyes and a person  from
\nthe  gang  instructed  the complainant to contact his house over his cellphone
\nand inform them that he had gone to Coimbatore for business purpose  and  that
\nhe would come the next morning and accordingly, he informed his wife the same.
\nThe  gang  members informed the complainant that they were members of L.T.T.E.
\nand that they want to extract  money  from  rich  people  like  him  and  they
\nthreatened him  to  give  a  cash  of  Rs.10  crores.    They  manhandled  the
\ncomplainant’s driver in his presence and threatened him that he would also  be
\ntreated in  the  same  manner if he fails to co-operate with them.  One of the
\ngang members tied a belt around the complainant’s hip and pointed out that the
\nbelt contained a bomb and that it would explode within a short time.  He could
\nhear an alarm sounding ‘tick, tick, …’ from the belt.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      In the early morning at 0300  hours  on  the  next  day,  i.e.
\n7.2.2002  , one of the persons informed the complainant that the leader of the
\ngang had come and that three or four persons covering their faces with a cloth
\nasked the complainant for Rs.10 crores, for which  he  replied  them  that  he
\ncould  arrange only a sum of Rs.10 lakhs immediately and that he could arrange
\nRs.25 lakhs from the bank.  They reminded him of the belt which would  explode
\nif he  did  not  co-operate.   At 0700 hours on 7.2.2002, they directed him to
\ncontact his house over his cellphone and tell them that he would come  in  the
\nafternoon  and that he tried two or three times to pass on such a message over
\nthe cellphone and at last, he could get the connection.  At 0800 hours in  the
\nmorning,  they  told him that the leader had agreed to receive a cash of Rs.35
\nlakhs and that first of all, he should arrange to  bring  a  cash  of  Rs.10.5
\nlakhs along with the cheque book and the seal.  Accordingly, at 0830 hours, he
\ncontacted his  Manager  Thiru.   Soundararajan through his cellphone and asked
\nhim to bring the cash.  He could not inform him about  his  abduction  as  the
\ngang members  were  watching  his  conversation.    The  gang members obtained
\nsignatures and thumb impressions of the  complainant  in  blank  papers,  bond
\npapers  and  pronotes  in more than ten sheets and they told him to change his
\ndress which was kept in his car.  They removed his  wrist  watch,  gold  ring,
\ngold  chain  and  cash of Rs.25,000\/- from him and thereafter, the wrist watch
\nwas only returned to him.  They boarded him into the SUMO jeep  and  the  gang
\nmembers sat  in  the car and they took him in the SUMO car, blind-folded.  The
\ncar was driven on a road, which  according  to  the  complainant,  was  not  a
\nhighway road, for about 40 minutes and then, the car reached the main road and
\nthen,  after  travelling 1-1\/2 hours, they removed the cloth from his eyes and
\non seeing the kilometer stone, he understood that they had  come  to  Kangayam
\nand  again,  after  a  travel of one hour, he understood that they had come to
\nErode.  It was about 1145 hours then in the morning and  when  they  tried  to
\nstay in  a  lodge at Erode, room was not available.  The gang members told him
\nthat the amount, which  had  already  been  arranged,  should  be  brought  to
\nPerundurai  and  accordingly,  the  complainant contacted his Manager over his
\ncellphone and asked him to come to Vijayamangalam Main Road with the cash.  He
\nalso called up the Manager of Indian Overseas Bank at Velampalayam  and  asked
\nhim to  keep  a  cash  of  Rs.25  lakhs ready.  In the meanwhile, they reached
\nVijayamangalam where his Office Manager was standing  with  the  complainant’s
\ncompany jeep.    After  getting  the bag containing the money from the Manager
\nwhile sitting in the car, he handed it over to the person who was  sitting  by
\nhis  side  and  as  per his instructions, he directed the Manager to go to the
\noffice.  Thereafter, the vehicle proceeded towards Erode and when the  Manager
\nThiru.   Soundararajan  tried to follow the vehicle, the complainant signalled
\nhim not to follow the vehicle and accordingly, his Manager did not follow  the
\nvehicle.   After travelling for five kilometers and upon ascertaining that the
\nvehicle  of  the  Manager  was  not  following   them,   they   entered   into
\nKanakkampalayam   Branch   Road,   reached   the  Ring  Road,  Avanashi  Road,
\nThirumurugan Poondi Road and at last, they went  to  the  Bank  in  which  the
\ncomplainant is  having  his account.  They had another belt bomb in their hand
\nand each one of the gang members picked up explosive substances from the  bag,
\nput  the  same  in their shirt pockets, a member of the gang tied himself with
\nanother belt and threatened the complainant that if he  tried  to  escape,  he
\nwould  kill  him  by  embracing  him  and  exploding the bomb and they further
\nthreatened him that his wife and children would also be  killed  by  the  gang
\nmembers who were present near his house.  They instructed him that while going
\nto the  bank,  he  must  treat them as his office workers.  After entering the
\nbank, one of the persons was with him in the Bank Manager’s cabin and  another
\nperson was  standing  in  front of the cabin.  The complainant took out a torn
\nleaf from the cheque book which was given by his Manager at Vijayamangalam and
\ngave it to the Bank Manager.  The Bank Manager gave Rs.25 lakhs in bundles and
\na member of the gang, who came along with him, received the same and put it in
\nthe bag which was kept by him.  The complainant did not come out of  the  bank
\ndue  to  the  fear  that he would be abducted again for extortion of money and
\nkilled.  The persons who went along with him went out after a few minutes  and
\nafter some time, the complainant came out of the bank and saw that the persons
\nwho had abducted him had gone away.  Thereafter, he disclosed the facts to the
\nBank Manager, contacted his company, instructed them to send a car and reached
\nhis house  as soon as the car arrived.  According to the complainant, 10 to 12
\npersons were involved in his abduction.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      On 7.2.2002 night at 2200 hours, his car driver contacted  him
\nover  phone  and  informed  that he was released by the gang at 1600 hours and
\nthat he was in Chinnadharapuram.  As the whole episode caused mental agony  to
\nhim,  the  complainant  decided  to  lodge  a  complaint with the police after
\nmeeting his car driver and accordingly, on 8.2.2002, at about 1100 hours, when
\nhis car driver met him, the complainant  lodged  a  complaint  at  the  Police
\nStation in connection with the abduction episode which occurred on 6.2.2002 at
\nabout 1915 hours, the extortion of gold chain weighing four sovereigns, a gold
\nring  weighing  one  sovereign, a cell phone and cash of Rs.25,000\/- which was
\nkept by him on the day and also a cash of Rs.10,50,000\/- which was received by
\nhim from his Manager and further a cash of Rs.25  lakhs  which  was  withdrawn
\nfrom  the  Bank  on  7.2.2002  as  also  the threat to kill him and his family
\nmembers by showing explosive substances.  The Sub Inspector of Police received
\nthe complaint and registered a case under Sections 36 4 and 397 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      The Inspector of Police took up further investigation  of  the
\ncase  on  9.2.2002,  visited the scene of occurrence, examined the complainant
\nand other witnesses.  On the basis of certain  incriminating  materials,  they
\ncould  trace  out  a telephone number of Chennai and after further information
\nand investigation,  Tvl.    Chandrasekar  and   Baskar   were   arrested   and
\ninterrogated.  They were later brought to Nambiyur Police Station on 16.5.2002
\nand  during the course of investigation, they admitted the fact that they went
\nto Tiruppur and abducted the complainant Palanisamy and  extorted  money  from
\nhim.  They  made  a  confession  statement  in  the presence of witnesses.  On
\nfurther investigation and on the basis of their statements, the  Inspector  of
\nPolice arrested  Tvl.    Muthukrishnan,  Devaraj,  Kamaraj,  Krishnan  @ Games
\nKrishnan and seized  the  properties  and  brought  them  to  Nambiyur  Police
\nStation.   On  further  investigation  by  the  Inspector  of Police, one A.S.
\nPonnuraj @ A.P.R.  was arrested on 22.2.2002 and in his confession  statement,
\nhe  had  stated  that  he knew Chinnasamy for several years and that he had to
\ngive a balance amount of Rs.5.25 lakhs to him  for  a  transaction  maintained
\nbetween them.   He also stated that on 18.1.2002, the said Chinnasamy had told
\nhim that he had no money to pay him, but  there  was  a  wealthy  man  and  if
\nabducted,  he would give Rs.1 crore and that after three weeks, Chinnasamy and
\nhis associates A.S.  Ponraj @  A.P.R.,  Bangalore  Velu,  Nagendran,  Kumar  @
\nKungfu  Kumar,  Kolathur  Chandrasekaran  @ Babu, Baskar, Mylapur Selvanesan @
\nSelvan, Kolathur Seenu,  Rajesh  @  Samy,  Crompet  Anandhakumar  @  Anandhan,
\nSankarapandi,  Krishnan  and  some  others  hatched  a  conspiracy  at  A.P.R.
\nBuilder’s Office, Vadapalani, Chennai to abduct  Tiruppur  J.V.    Mill  Onwer
\nPalanisamy.  According  to  him,  Tvl.    Nagendran,  Kumar  @  Kungfu  Kumar,
\nChandrasekaran @ Babu, Baskar, Seenu, Rajesh @ Samy, Anandhakumar  @  Anandhan
\nand  Selvanesan  @  Selvan  went  to Tiruppur along with the detenu to execute
\ntheir plan and after successful completion of the  operation,  he  met  Thiru.
\nNagendran  and  his  friends on 8.2.2002 in the evening and at that time, they
\ntold him that they had executed the task successfully.  He  also  stated  that
\nChinnasamy  divided  the  share and gave it to them, that they gave a bag with
\ncash which was given by Chinnasamy and that he had kept the bag with  cash  at
\nA.P.R.  Office, Vadapalani,  Chennai.    Thereafter,  A.P.R.  was arrested and
\nproduced before Judicial Magistrate No.2, Gobichettipalayam, who remanded  him
\nto judicial custody.  The remand period was later extended upto 8.5.2002.  The
\nF.I.R.   was  altered to one under Sections 120(b), 364(A), 395 read with 397,
\n384, 347, 21 6(A) and 506(ii) I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      Thereafter, Tvl.  Velu and  T.    Krishnan  were  arrested  on
\n27.2.2002 and they have admitted the involvement of Chinnasamy and others in a
\nnumber of abduction  episodes  for  extortion  of  money.  Thiru.  Murugesan @
\nMurugan was then arrested on 28.2.2002, who had also admitted the abduction of
\nPalanisamy.  He gave a confession statement stating that  Chinnasamy  was  his
\nmaternal  uncle and that as per the plan of his uncle, he had earlier abducted
\none Muthuvel @ Kumar along with his uncle’s  associates  and  brought  him  to
\nChennai  by giving anaesthetic medicine and extorted a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from
\nhim.  Later, his uncle had abducted one Palanisamy and extorted money and gave
\nhim a cash of Rs.10,000\/-  from  the  extortion  money  for  his  expenditure.
\nLater,  Krishnan  and  Murugesan  were  produced  before  the  Magistrate, who
\nremanded him to judicial custody.  In the  meanwhile,  Thiru.    Selvanesan  @
\nSelvan  surrendered  before Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate No.V, Chennai and
\nhe had confessed the whole episode.  The Inspector of Police  arrested  Thiru.
\nKumaresan, Son of Krishnan @ Games Krishnan on 13.2.2002, who gave a voluntary
\nconfession statement.    He  was  produced  before  the  Judicial  Magistrate,
\nGobichettipalayam, who remanded him to judicial custody.  The Inspector  later
\non proceeded  to  Chennai along with Tvl.  Kumar @ Kungfu Kumar, Rajesh @ Samy
\nand Anandhakumar @ Anandhan in order to recover the case property and seized a
\ncash of Rs.40,000\/- from the house of Kumar @ Kungfu Kumar at Red Hills  under
\na cover of mahazar on 15.3.2002.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      On  23.2.2002,  the  police  arrested Sankarapandi, the detenu
\nherein and Chinnasamy (detenu in H.C.P.  No.2182 of 2002).  The detenu is  the
\ndriver  employed  by  Chinnasamy  in  the  year  1997  for a monthly salary of
\nRs.3,000\/-.  Though he had stopped his employment with Chinnasamy, he rejoined
\nhim in the year 2001.  He was aware that Chinnasamy was involved in  smuggling
\nof spirits  and  dealing in seconds brandy.  He has assisted Chinnasamy in all
\nhis illegal activities for earning quick money.  He was actively  involved  in
\nthe  adverse  case  wherein  they  had  extorted a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from one
\nMuthuvel @ Kumar.  He had also participated in the conspiracy to extort  money
\nfrom  Palanisamy  by  abducting  him and in pursuance to that conspiracy, they
\nstayed  at  Tiruppur  Games  Krishnan  Mill  and  watched  the  activities  of
\nPalanisamy.   As  per  their conspiracy and plan, the detenu actively assisted
\nChinnasamy to abduct Palanisamy, kept him in illegal confinement,  forced  him
\nto  wear a belt tied with a time bomb, threatened him and extracted money from
\nhim.  According to the voluntary statement of the detenu, he had received only
\nRs.15,000\/- from Chinnasamy for playing his part in the offence and recoveries
\nto the extent of Rs.2,95,000\/- were made based on the confession statement  of
\nthe detenu  and  others.    The  detenu  and  Chinnasamy  were produced before
\nJudicial Magistrate No.II, Gobichettipalayam on 24.3.2002  and  were  remanded
\nand lodged in the Central Prison, Coimbatore.  All these materials were placed
\nbefore  the  detaining  authority who was satisfied that the activities of the
\ndetenu had created a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the general public,
\ntraders and labourers and had caused annoyance to public tranquility and  that
\nthere  was  a  compelling  necessity to pass an order of detention against the<\/p>\n
detenu and hence, the impugned order of detention had been passed with a  view
\nto prevent the detenu from indulging in prejudicial activities in future.  The
\nsaid order is now under challenge.\n<\/p>\n
        9.      The  only  ground  argued  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the
\npetitioner is that there is  a  business  dealing  between  Chinnasamy,  whose
\nillegal  activities  the  detenu  had  been  assisting, and the alleged victim
\nPalanisamy and that in the course of their business transaction, the money was
\ntaken by him and in any event, according to him, this  is  purely  a  business
\ntransaction and the alleged offence could not be a ground affecting public law
\nand order  so  as  to  invoke the provisions of Act 14 of 1982.  Therefore, he
\nprays for quashing the order of detention.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     Whereas, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by relying upon
\nthe previous case involving the detenu, the  modus  operandi  adopted  by  the
\ndetenu  to  extort  money while assisting Chinnasamy, the confession statement
\nwhich remained uncontroverted till the order of detention was passed and  also
\nthe  statement  of  the  Bank Manager and other accused and witnesses, submits
\nthat the activities of the detenu have far reaching  consequences  in  general
\nand  in particular, the impact of the activities of the detenu is heavy on the
\nindustrialists and public of Tiruppur Town.  By referring to the resolution of
\nthe industrialists, the Press reports and the  corroborative  materials  which
\nemanated  during  that  period,  he submitted that women of Tiruppur Town were
\nafraid  of  going  for  their  morning  walks  and  that  factory  owners  and
\nindustrialists  were  afraid  of  dealing with persons and in particular, they
\nwere afraid of carrying cash through banks  or  receive  or  take  money  from
\nbanks,  he  contends  that  this is a fit case affecting law and order and the
\ngeneral public.  In any event, according to him, at least  a  section  of  the
\npublic,  namely  Palanisamy, who was abducted and his family members were very
\nmuch affected and that by this act of the detenu, the staff and the workers of
\nthe victim and  his  family  members  were  threatened  and  their  lives  and
\nproperties   were   in  danger  and  therefore,  the  order  of  detention  is
\njustifiable.  He prays that in order to remove the  fear  from  the  minds  of
\nfactory owners of Tiruppur and other adjoining areas and to maintain peace, it
\nit necessary that the detention order is sustained.\n<\/p>\n
        11.     We  have  heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
\nlearned Additional Public Prosecutor and considered the matter carefully.\n<\/p>\n
        12.     The question that arises  for  consideration  is  whether  the
\nadmitted  action  of  the  detenu  would  involve affecting the maintenance of
\npublic order and peace.\n<\/p>\n
        13.     The fact that the detenu is already involved in the  abduction
\nof  one  Muthuvel  @  Kumar and extortion of Rs.20 lakhs from him by placing a
\nknife on his neck, forcing him to take brandy mixed with tablets, keeping  him
\nin  confinement  and  threatening  to  kill  him by pouring petrol and thereby
\nextracting Rs.20 lakhs from him, which case is also under investigation.\n<\/p>\n
        14.     Close on the heels to the adverse case, the  ground  case  has
\noccurred on  6.2.2002.    The factum of the abduction, extortion and the modus
\noperandi has been clearly spoken to by all the  accused  in  their  confession
\nstatements.   Till  the  order  of  detention was passed on 6.5.2002, the said
\nconfession statements given by the accused  have  not  been  retracted.    The
\ndetenu had not filed any bail application so far.  A reading of the confession
\nstatement  makes  it  clear that the detenu had created terror in the minds of
\nthe victim, his associates like his Office Manager and also his family members
\nand was able to extract Rs.35 lakhs from  him.    They  all  programmed  their
\nabduction plan  meticulously  and  executed  the  same.  He has also confessed
\nabout the previous abduction and extortion of money from one Kumar,  which  is
\none of the adverse cases here.\n<\/p>\n
        15.     From  the  above,  it could be seen that Chinnasamy had become
\ndesparate and  was  involved  in  extracting  huge  sums  of  money  from  big
\nindustrialists.  For the execution of the crimes, the detenu had formed a gang
\nconstituting  about  10  to  15  of  his associates, which included the detenu
\nherein, engaged a car and meticulously  prepared  and  executed  the  plan  of
\nabduction according  to  their  plan.   Thus, it could be seen that there is a
\npattern of commission of crimes in order to extract huge sums of  money.    In
\nthat  process,  it  is seen that the detenu along with the other associates of
\nChinnasamy had to contact the family members of the victim, the Office Manager
\nand the staff of the victim, the Branch Manager  of  the  Bank,  their  staff,
\nother workers  and  all concerned.  Naturally, all of them were put under fear
\nand threat because of the involvement of the victim.  As it is stated  by  the
\nlearned  Additional  Public  Prosecutor,  there  are  materials  to  show that
\nresolutions were passed by the Association of Industrialists at  Tiruppur  and
\nrequests were made to the Government to detain the detenu and others concerned
\nunder the  Goondas  Act.   There was a fear which was created, as reflected by
\nnewspaper  reports,  and  the  whole  town  had  been  brought  under   police
\nprotection, number of police camps having been formed and the very information
\ncoming  continuously  in a number of newspaper reports for months together has
\nreally created a sense of insecurity and a scare in the minds of  the  general
\npublic of  the town.  Though this is not elaborately dealt with in the grounds
\nof detention, considering the gravity of the offences committed by the  detenu
\nby  way  of  his  operations,  it  could not but have invited the attention of
\nindustrialists, workers and the public of the town.\n<\/p>\n
        16.     The  definition  under  Section  2  of  the  Act   says   that
\nmaintenance  of  public  order  would  include the threat of even a section of
\npublic and therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the staff and the workers
\nof the victim and his family members were seriously threatened and their lives
\nendangered.  In the above circumstances, it cannot  be  stated  that  this  is
\npurely  a  case  of business transaction between the victim and the detenu and
\nhis associates.  It cannot be stated that the  act  committed  by  the  detenu
\nwould not  affect  the  life  of  the  community.  The act is so grave, it has
\nendangered public tranquility, affecting public order.   The  detenu,  by  his
\nact,  has created a sense of insecurity in the minds of the business community
\nwho had been moving about, round the clock,  without  reference  to  time,  in
\npursuit of  their  business  activities.   The factories and textile mills are
\nspread over hundreds of miles in and around Tiruppur and businessmen  have  to
\ncommute to  these units at odd hours.  If they were to be waylaid and abducted
\nfor ransom, it would endanger the whole movement of the business community  in
\nthat area.\n<\/p>\n
        17.     A  similar  objection was raised and considered by the Supreme
\nCourt in Sharat Kumar Tyagi vs.  State of U.P.  (A.I.R.    1989  S.C.    764),
\ninter  alia,  contending  that the ground case would, at best, affect only law
\nand order and would not pose a threat to  the  maintenance  of  public  order.
\nRepelling  the  said  contention, their lordships have held that the demand of
\nransom and the attack launched on them would show that it was not  a  case  of
\nsingling  out  a  particular  contractor  for  payment  of money, but a demand
\nexpected to be complied  with  by  all  owners  or  contractors  and  in  such
\ncircumstances, the demand made and the attack launched would undoubtedly cause
\nfear and panic in the minds of all owners and contractors of that area and the
\ntempo of the life of the community would be affected.  It was observed that an
\napparent  simple law and order situation might assume the gravity and mischief
\nof public order by reason of the manner or the circumstances in which the  act
\nhas been  carried  out.    Even  a  single  act may threaten the public order.
\nApplying the above principle to the facts of the case on hand, we are clear in
\nour minds that the act of the detenu herein has created a sense panic  in  the
\nminds  of  the business community, thus affecting the life and tempo of public
\nlife of the community.  We are satisfied  that  the  detaining  authority  had
\nsufficient  materials  to come to the satisfaction that there was a compelling
\nnecessity to pass an order of detention against the detenu.\n<\/p>\n
        18.     For all these reasons, no grounds are made  out  to  interfere
\nwith the order  of  detention.    The  H.C.P.    fails  and  it is accordingly
\ndismissed.  Consequently, H.C.M.P.  No.163 of 2002 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
ab<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary to Government,
\nState of Tamil Nadu,
\nProhibition & Excise Department,
\nFort St.  George,
\nChennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The District Collector and
\nDistrict Magistrate,
\nErode District, Erode.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Superintendent,
\nCentral Prison,
\nCoimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Joint Secretary to Government,
\nState of Tamil Nadu,
\nPublic (Law & Order) Department,
\nFort St.  George,
\nChennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Public Prosecutor,
\nChennai-600 104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S. Arumuga Devar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30\/04\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN Habeas Corpus Petition No.2183 of 2002 S. Arumuga Devar .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. State of Tamil […]<\/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-96656","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS. Arumuga Devar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 - 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\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Arumuga Devar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-28T10:09:13+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Arumuga Devar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-28T10:09:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":4198,\"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\\\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\",\"name\":\"S. Arumuga Devar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-28T10:09:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Arumuga Devar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"S. Arumuga Devar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 - 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\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Arumuga Devar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-28T10:09:13+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Arumuga Devar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-28T10:09:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003"},"wordCount":4198,"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\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003","name":"S. Arumuga Devar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-28T10:09:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-arumuga-devar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Arumuga Devar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2003"}]},{"@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\/96656","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=96656"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96656\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96656"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96656"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96656"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}