(Order of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.)
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent made in C.M.P.No.19/Cyber Law Offender/C2/2016 dated 03.08.2016 passing detention order to detain one Mr.Suresh, aged 22 years, son of Palanisamy, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 branding him as "CYBER LAW OFFENDER".
2. The detenu-Suresh is a resident of Kalparappatty Village, Salem South Taluk, Salem District. One Miss.Vinupriya D/o.Annadurai was residing at Edanganasalai Village in Salem District. She was doing B.Sc., [Chemistry] course in Vivekananda Women's College at Tiruchengode, between 2012- 2015. Without her knowledge a facebook account was opened in the name of "vinupriyamythili" by the detenu in which he uploaded the photographs of Miss.Vinupriya in obscene manner. Having seen the same, the deceased, out of depression, committed suicide on 27.06.2016 by hanging. On the complaint made by the father of Miss.Vinupriya, a case in Crime No.260 of 2016 was registered under Section 306 of IPC. During investigation, it turned out that in order to damage the reputation of Miss.Vinupriya, as she refused to accept his love, the detenu went into an application called "9 APPS" and went into the "Bikini Suit Photo Editor" and downloaded the half naked photos in it and went into the Email ID of Vinupriya (amvinupriya29@gmail.com) through its password (9842226076) and opened the facebook of Vinupriya which was already in and went into the editing option and fakely added the name of Vinuriyamythili-mythili and created a facebook ID and through that the detenu has uploaded the obscene photos of Vinupriya which he had edited from his samsung Galaxy J2 cellphone 4 to 5 times. Thus, according to the sponsoring authority, because of the acts of the detenu, the deceased had committed suicide. Based on these allegations, on being sponsored by the 3rd respondent - Inspector of Police, Magudamchavadi Police Station, the 2nd respondent - District Magistrate and District Collector, Salem, passed the above-said order of detention. That is how, the petitioner is before this court with this habeas corpus petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.
4. In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority that recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing the detenu from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, is totally baseless.
5. We find no force at all in the said argument. The material placed before the detaining authority had convinced the detaining authority that a person having sound knowledge in information technology, who had gone to the extent of creating a fake facebook account to upload the obscene photographs of a girl, may indulge in similar activities, if released on bail. Therefore, in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities, the detaining authority, having satisfied with the reasons set out above, passed the impugned order of detention in which we do not find any infirmity.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued any other ground. Thus, we do not find any merit in the habeas corpus petition and the same deserves only to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the habeas corpus petition is dismissed.
Index : yes / no [S.N.J.,.] [Dr.A.S.M.,J.] Internet : yes / no 16..03..2017 kmk To
1. The Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,Collector's Office, Salem.
3. The Inspector of Police, Magudamchavadi Police Station, Salem District.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras S.NAGAMUTHU. J,.
and DR.ANITA SUMANTH.J,.
kmk Habeas Corpus Petition No.1956 of 2016 16..03..2017 http://www.judis.nic.in