N RAJA Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the relief as stated therein.)This petition has been filed by the friend of the detenu A. Manikandan seeking issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for a direction to the respondents to produce his friend A. Manikandan, S/o. Annamalai before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) THE reasons stated by the petitioner in the affidavit are as follows: the petitioner is a cable operator. The detenu is a family friend of the petitioner. On 2. 4. 2008, a complaint was lodged before the 1st respondent by the defacto complainant stating that at 7. 30p. m. on that day, six named accused had threatened him at knife point and demanded to vacate the land situated in Gobichettypalayam, where he was a tenant on account of a civil dispute between him and the landlord. Based on the said complaint, the 1st respondent had registered a case in Crime No. 221/2008 under Sections 120b, 147, 148, 448, 384, 385 and 506 (ii) I. P. C. against the detenu and 7 others. The detenu filed an anticipatory bail application in Crl. O. P. No. 7904/2008 before this Court and he was also granted anticipatory bail on condition that he shall surrender before the Court and shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettypalayam. Accordingly, on 23. 4. 2008, the detenu had surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettypalayam and produced two sureties. The learned Judicial Magistrate, instead of releasing the detenu, had sent the surety documents for verification and ordered remand of the detenu to judicial custody until the verification was over. As this order, contrary to the order of passed by this Hon'ble Court, violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.

(3.) HEARD Mr. M. Radhakrishnan appearing for Mr. P. Pugalenthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Senior Counsel as Amicus Curiae.