P.SHANMUGAM, J. - (1.)The above Habeas Corpus Petition is filed seeking to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 11.12.2000 under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and for a direction to the respondents to set at liberty the petitioner's son Thiru. Anandh @ Anandh @ Geetha Annan, who is hereinafter referred to as the detenu.
(2.)The petitioner is a Sri Lankan citizen. She came to India along with her son, the detenu herein, as a refugee due to the ethnic violence in Sri Lanka during 1983. According to her, she came by lawful means using their Passports. On arrival in India, they registered themselves as refugees and complied with several other formalities required of a refugee from Sri Lanka. The detenu is married and having a three years old daughter. According to the petitioner, on 16.10.2000, four plain clothed men from 'Q' Branch C.B.C.I.D. came to the residence of the petitioner at about 2 pm and took the detenu. Since the petitioner was not aware of the whereabouts of the detenu and persons who took him, initially she had filed a criminal complaint before the J-1 Saidapet Police Station. The case was registered as Crime No.2954 of 2000. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that a case was registered against the detenu in Crime No.1 of 2000 under Sections 120B, 489A, 489B, 489C and Section 12(1)(c) of the Passport Act read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and that he was remanded to judicial custody on 25.10.2000. According to her, the detenu was innocent and therefore, she had applied for bail and after the initial rejection of the bail application, upon completion of 90 days and after the filing of the final report by the police, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli ordered release of the detenu on bail in Crl. M.P. No.211 of 2001 on 1.2.2001. As it took some time to comply with the conditions and furnishing of the sureties, when the detenu was about to be released on bail, on 19.2.2001, the C.B.C.I.D. served upon the detenu, the impugned order dated 11.12.2000 and he has been ever since detained in the Special Camp for Sri Lankan Refugees at Chengalpattu. The above H.C.P. is filed against this order.
(3.)When the matter came up for hearing on an earlier occasion, the following order was passed by the Division Bench on 23.9.2002 :-
"As soon as the matter was taken up, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the Government have no objection for sending the detenu back to Srilanka, if he makes a representation to that effect praying for his repatriation back to Srilanka and that as on date, the Government is unable to send him back in view of the pendency of a case registered for an offence of possession of a counterfeit Srilankan currency note. It is his further submission that a report from the Mint Forensic Expert is awaited and it is likely to be made available to the investigating officer in Crime No.1 of 2000 on the file of 'Q' Branch C.I.D., Trichy, in a week or ten days, and as soon as it is received, the final report will be filed against the detenu. He further submits that since the offence is punishable with the imprisonment or fine and in the event of the Court sentencing him only to fine, the Government will consider his request, if any made, favourably taking into consideration the facts and circumstances available as on that date. He, therefore, prays two weeks time. At his request, adjourned by two (2) weeks, for which course, the learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection. Adjourned by two (2) weeks."
(emphasis is added) As no orders as per the undertaking and as contemplated were passed, the matter was mentioned before another Bench and after several requests and adjournments by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the following order ultimately came to be passed on 5.3.2003 :-
"As an interim measure, without going into the main relief sought for in the petition, we are satisfied that the only objection for the detention of the detenu Anandh @ Anandh @ Geetha Annan in the Special Camp for Srilankan Refugees at Chengalput viz. the pendency of the criminal case, can be directed to be disposed of in a time-bound manner, since the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu will be prepared to pay the fine to close the criminal case. Hence, we direct the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy, to advance the committal proceedings in P.R.C. No.13/2003 to 10.3.2003 and commit the matter to the Sessions Court, and in turn, the Sessions Court shall take up the matter on 17.3.2003 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. 2. Post this H.C.P. on 19.3.2003."
It was specifically understood, according to the learned senior counsel and not controverted, that in the hearings on those days that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter could be closed instead of going into the merits of the H.C.P. and accordingly, the said order came to be passed.