Madras High Court
V.Meenal vs The Inspector General Of Police ... on 21 July, 2023
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Orders Reserved On Orders Pronounced On
19.07.2023 21.07.2023
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
V.Meenal ... Petitioner/Wife of the detenu
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Police (South Zone CBCID),
No.77, 4th Street,
Ramond Reserve Line,
Race Course Colony,
Madurai – 625 002.
2.The Superintendent of Police (CBCID),
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai.
3.The Superintendent of Police (CBCID),
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police (CBCID),
Superintendent of Police Office,
Madurai District, Madurai.
6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBCID South,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID South,
Sivagangai District.
8.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID South,
Pudukkottai District.
9.The Inspector of Police,
Natchiyarpuram Police Station,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus,
directing the respondents herein to take necessary steps to produce the body
or person of the detenu, namely, Velu @ Velukrishnan, S/o.Krishnan, aged
about 48 years before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohmaed Riyaz
for Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
For Respondents : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah
Public Prosecutor
and
Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
2/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
ORDER
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of
earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 10.07.2023, which reads
as follows:-
''The petitioner, W/o.Velu @ Velukrishnan, had
filed this petition seeking to release her husband, who
had been illegally taken and detained by the fifth
respondent on 06.07.2023.
2.The primary contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband was
taken forcibly from the Hospital without giving reasons
by the respondent Police. Hence, she instructed her
counsel to make a representation before this Court
about the entire episode. Her counsel namely,
Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi appeared before this
Court on 06.07.2023, informed about the anticipatory
bail already obtained by the petitioner's husband in
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.11607 and 11629 of 2023, dated
27.06.2023 and on perusal of the same, it is seen that
this Court, after considering all the facts, including the
fact of issuance of 41(A) of Cr.P.C. notice, by order
dated 27.06.2023, had granted anticipatory bail to the
petitioner's husband.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the order copy was made ready on
03.07.2023 and the petitioner's husband has got time
till 18.07.2023 to execute the sureties as per the orders
of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
4.When Mr.RMS.Sethuraman, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor was asked to enquire about the
same, he took time, on instructions from the
Investigating Officer namely, D.Felix Suresh Peter
informed that the petitioner's husband was taken only
for enquiry and he will be released. At that point of
time, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was
reminded about the order passed by this Court dated
27.06.2023, in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.11607 and 11629 of
2023 and also the order passed by this Court, dated
07.10.2022, in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18052 and 18053 of
2022. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed
seeking the relief stated supra.
5.Contrary to the above said orders and the
assurance given by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor before this Court, the petitioner's husband
has been shown arrest in Crime No.2 of 2023 under
Section 174 of Cr.P.C., altered to Sections 120-B and
306 of I.P.C. on 06.07.2023.
6.In this case, the petitioner's husband is a
known diabetic and heart patient, who is under
constant medication. While he was taking treatment at
Apollo Hospital, Karaikudi, he was taken by the fifth
respondent and thereafter, he had been remanded to
judicial custody by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Pudukottai.
7.Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the
arrest and remand has become questionable. In view
of the same, this Court directs the Superintendent of
Prison, Pudukottai, to release the petitioner's husband
namely, Velu @ Velukrishnan forthwith.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
8.List the matter on 19.07.2023. In the
meanwhile, the petitioner's husband shall execute the
sureties as per the order passed by this Court, dated
07.10.2022, in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18052 and 18053 of
2022.''
2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case, the arrest
of the petitioner's husband is proper. Due to some miscommunication,
complete facts and events could not be placed before this Court on
06.07.2023. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
petitioner's husband was arrayed as Accused No.5 in Crime No.2 of 2023 on
the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID South, Pudukkottai District. On
06.07.2013, the petitioner's husband was taken to the Police Station for
enquiry in connection with the above said crime number, where he admitted
his guilt. The Arrest Memo was served to one Anbarasan, who is the
nephew of the petitioner's husband. Thereafter, he was taken to the
Government Hospital for medical check up and after obtaining a fitness
certificate, he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Pudukkottai, who remanded the petitioner's husband on the same day i.e., on
06.07.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
3. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
petitioner's husband obtained anticipatory bail in respect of Crime No.1 of
2023, on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, South,
Sivagangai, from this Court on 27.06.2023, in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11629 of
2023. Initially, Crime No.1 of 2023 was registered for offences under
Sections 211, 384, 389 and 306 I.P.C. Thereafter, the Sections of law were
altered into Sections 211, 384 and 389 I.P.C. Section 306 I.P.C. has been
deleted and the Alteration Report, dated 29.05.2023, submitted to the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai, on 30.05.2023. Thus, the
claim of the petitioner that her husband was taken by the respondent Police,
despite he obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11629 of 2023, is
not proper.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that even in the
affidavit, the petitioner confirms that her husband was taken in connection
with Crime No.2 of 2023, which is investigated by the CBCID Police,
Pudukkottai. The confusion might be for the reason that the Investigating
Officer in both the cases namely, CBCID, Pudukkottai and CBCID,
Sivagangai, is one and the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
5. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that once the
accused is produced for remand before the concerned jurisdictional
Magistrate and the Magistrate after satisfaction, remanded the accused to
judicial custody, there is no question of illegal detention/custody. Hence,
there is no question of illegal detainment or any illegality in the arrest of the
petitioner's husband in Crime No.2 of 2023.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the above
cases have got a long and chequered history. The mother case, namely,
Crime No.4 of 2021 was registered by the All Women Police Station,
Devakottai, for offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506(i) I.P.C. r/w.
Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said case got transferred to the file of the
CBCID, Sivagangai, and re-numbered as Crime No.1 of 2022.
7. On the complaint of one Krishnan, who is the brother-in-law of
Nachiyappan, a case in Crime No.33 of 2022 was registered by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Pudukkottai District, under
Section 174 Cr.P.C., for the suspicious death of Nachiyappan. In Crime No.
1 of 2022, the said Nachiyappan and Saritha are shown as Accused No.1
and Accused No.2 respectively. Nachiyappan/Accused No.1 made all efforts
not to get any case registered against him, on a false complaint by some
vested interest people, who extorted huge sums of money to the tune of
Rs.50,00,000/-. Not satisfied with the same, they further demanded a
bakery and house. The said Nachiyappan despite parting with
Rs.50,00,000/-, was made as accused in Crime No.4 of 2021. The said
Nachiyappan filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.399 of 2022 seeking for a direction to
the Special Court for exclusively trial under POCSO Act, Sivagangai, to
accept his surrender and consider his bail application and grant bail on the
same date of surrender in Crime No.4 of 2021, registered on 30.12.2021, by
the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Devakottai. This
Petition was not entertained and dismissed as withdrawn on 20.01.2022.
The said Nachiyappan not only lost his money, but also lost all hopes of his
life. Hence, he went to his sister's house at Pudukkottai, on 24.01.2022,
where he committed suicide by hanging, for which, a case in Crime No.33
of 2022 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. by Keeranur Police,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
which later, got transferred to the file of the CBCID, Pudukkottai and re-
numbered as Crime No.2 of 2023.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the wife of
Nachiyappan namely, Sakunthaladevi suspecting the death of her husband,
lodged a complaint with Kallal Police Station, Sivagangai District, and
C.S.R.No.21 of 2022 assigned and thereafter, no action taken. Hence, she
approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18052 and 18053 of
2022, seeking to transfer the investigation of her complaint in C.S.R.No.21
of 2022 from the file of the Inspector of Police, Kallal Police Station,
Sivagangai District, to the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBCID, Madurai District and to transfer the investigation of the complaint
in Crime No.33 of 2022, from the file of the Inspector of Police, Keeranur
Police Station, Pudukkottai District, to the file of the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, CBCID, Madurai District and a consequential direction to the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Madurai District, for conducting
proper investigation along with Crime No.4 of 2021 in an expeditious
manner. This Court, by order dated 07.10.2022, gave a positive direction,
directing the transfer of all the cases to the file of the Deputy Superintendent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
of Police, CBCID, Madurai District, to conduct a detailed enquiry by
clubbing all the cases and to submit a report within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of that order with a rider ''in the manner
known to law''. The above said complaint in C.S.R.No.21 of 2022 registered
as Crime No.1 of 2023, on the file of the CBCID, Sivagangai.
9. Now, there are three cases, viz.,
(i) Crime No.1 of 2022, on the file of CBCID, Sivagangai, for the
offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, and Section 506 (i)
I.P.C. r/w. Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act.
(ii) Crime No.2 of 2023, on the file of CBCID, Pudukkottai, under
Section 174 of Cr.P.C. @ Sections 120-B and 306 I.P.C.
(iii) Crime No.1 of 2023, on the file of the CBCID, Sivagangai, for
the offences under Sections 211, 384, 389, 306 I.P.C. @ 120-B, 211, 384
and 389 I.P.C.
10. Insofar as the petitioner's husband is concerned, he is an accused
in Crime No.2 of 2023, on the file of CBCID, Pudukkottai; and in Crime
No.1 of 2023, on the file of CBCID, Sivagangai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
11. The petitioner's husband obtained anticipatory bail in Crime No.1
of 2023, on the file of CBCID, Sivagangai, from this Court on 27.06.2023
in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11629 of 2023. Hence, the arrest of the petitioner's
husband namely, Velu @ Velukrishnan in Crime No.2 of 2023, on the file
of CBCID, Pudukkottai, on 06.07.2023 is proper. On his arrest, he was
produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai and
remanded to judicial custody on the same day for the offences under
Sections 306 and 120-B I.P.C. There is no illegal detention of the
petitioner's husband and therefore, there is no cause of action or reason to
entertain this Habeas Corpus Petition and therefore, the same is liable to be
dismissed.
12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner's husband already approached this Court along with one
Athimoolam, who is arrayed as A6 in Crime No.1 of 2023, seeking
anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11629 of 2023. This Court, by order
dated 27.06.2023, granted anticipatory bail to them. In the anticipatory bail
order, the petitioner's husband and other accused are alleged to have
extorted a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the victim namely, deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
Nachiyappan on assurance to withdraw the case registered against him in
Crime No.4 of 2021, on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women
Police Station, Devakottai, Sivagangai District, under the POCSO Act and
other offences recorded. The suicide by hanging of Nachiyappan in his
brother-in-law's house is also recorded. Further, the deceased Nachiyappan
committed suicide because of humiliation given by Accused Nos.1 to 3 and
the deceased Nachiyappan had written some names in his diary, including
the name of the petitioner's husband. Further, this Court observed that such
writings would not amount to any instigation or abetment for Nachiyappan
to commit suicide are also recorded.
13. Furthermore, after considering the issuance of notice under
Section 41(A) Cr.P.C., for enquiry, this Court granted anticipatory bail to
the petitioner's husband and Accused Nos.6 and 7. The said order copy was
made ready on 03.07.2023. Within 15 days thereof, the petitioner's husband
was to execute sureties before the concerned Court. In the meanwhile, due
to ill-health, the petitioner's husband got admitted in Apollo Reach Hospital,
Karaikudi. He is taking treatment in the said Hospital for a long time. He
had taken treatment for his Coronary Artery disease and while he was taking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
treatment as inpatient from 02.07.2023, on 06.07.2023 at about 06.45 a.m.,
the CBCID Police forcibly took him from the Hospital against the medical
advice. The Hospital authorities also lodged a complaint with
Nachiyapuram Police Station, Sivagangai and C.S.R.No.187 of 2023
assigned. The petitioner, who was present in the Hospital, pleaded with the
Police to consider his health condition and also about the anticipatory bail
granted by this Court. The CBCID Police personnel refused to listen to the
same, pushed her away and forcibly took her husband, for which, she sent a
complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai and
Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District and to the Inspector of Police,
Nachiyapuram Police Station, Sivagangai District, by way of registered
post, as well as by online. Further, she instructed her counsel to make a
representation before this Court about the brutality and violation of Article
22 of the Constitution of India.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a
bare reading of both the complaints in Crime No.1 of 2023, registered by
the CBCID, Sivagangai and Crime No.2 of 2023 registered by the CBCID,
Pudukkottai are one and the same and identical. When already investigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
commenced on the complaint of Sakunthaladevi, W/o.Nachiyappan [Crime
No.1 of 2023, on the file of CBCID, Sivagangai], there is no necessity for
altering and registering a case in Crime No.2 of 2023 by the CBCID,
Pudukkottai. It is significant to see that the Investigating Officer in both the
cases is one and the same person, who was aware about the complaint,
substance of allegation and the persons involved in both the cases. On
coming to know about the petitioner's husband obtaining anticipatory bail in
Crime No.1 of 2023, the Investigating Officer to wreak vengeance, with
mala fide intention, arrested the petitioner's husband.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that at the
time of consideration of anticipatory bail petition, the Investigating Officer
was very much present, who in all fairness, ought to have informed about
the parallel investigation being conducted in Crime No.2 of 2023 for the
similar offence. The Investigating Officer on his own cannot delete Section
306 I.P.C. from Crime No.1 of 2023 and to include the same in Crime No.2
of 2023, which is nothing but arbitrary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that both
the cases arise on the suicide of Nachiyappan on 24.01.2022 and the
happenings before and after. The inclusion of the petitioner's husband's
name in Crime No.2 of 2023 is for the reason that his name also found place
in a diary left by the deceased Nachiyappan. Thus, both the cases are on the
same set of facts and allegations. Hence, altering the Section of law from
174 Cr.P.C. to Sections 120-B and 306 I.P.C. in Crime No.2 of 2023 on
29.05.2023 is nothing, but a colourable exercise. Likewise, deletion of
Section 306 I.P.C. from Crime No.1 of 2023 on the file of CBCID,
Sivagangai, on the same day is also a colourable exercise. The Investigating
Officer cannot be permitted to act in such a manner to circumvent the order
passed by this Court, dated 27.06.2023, in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11629 of 2023.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court in
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18052 and 18053 of 2022, vide order dated 07.10.2022,
directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Madurai, to conduct
a detailed enquiry by clubbing all the three cases. This being so,
interpreting this Court's order for the convenience of the Investigating
Officer, cannot be permitted. If at all the Investigating Officer is aggrieved
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
on the orders or any observation made, then, it is for him to file a petition
for cancellation of anticipatory bail or file a petition seeking clarification.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on
06.07.2023, when a representation was made before this Court, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner's
husband was taken only for enquiry. Now, under what circumstance, the
said enquiry changed to arrest, for which, no justifiable reason given. There
is no mention about the orders passed by this Court and the trajectory of the
case from 24.01.2022 in the remand request. He further submitted that since
both the cases in Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 are similar and arise out of the
same set of facts, the test of sameness is to be applied and hence, Crime No.
2 of 2023 is nothing, but second F.I.R. In such circumstances, there is no
question of arrest.
19. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation
and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 3794 and submitted that the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
Supreme Court consistently followed T.T.Anthony vs. State of Kerala
reported in 2001 (6) SCC 181, and held that a second FIR in respect of an
offence or different offences committed in the course of the same
transaction is not only impermissible, but it violates Article 21 of the
Constitution.
19.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs.
Union of India (UOI) and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 2386, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the complaints are worded in identical
terms and leave no manner of doubt that an identity of cause of action
underlies the allegations levelled against the petitioner and in view of the
same, successive F.I.Rs. and complaints bearing the same foundation has a
stifling effect.
19.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Lal Chawla and
others vs. State of U.P. and another reported in CDJ 2021 SC 184 and
submitted that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
right to life and liberty shall not be taken away except by due process of
law. Permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the
same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint
offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in numerous criminal
proceedings.
19.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarak Dash Mukharjee and
others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 731 and submitted that successive F.I.Rs. on the same set of facts and
allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny
of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
19.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the
judgment of this Court in K.Kathiresan vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported
in 2018 (4) MLJ (Cri) 59 and submitted that this Court had directed that all
F.I.Rs. registered in connection with happenings of 22.05.2018 and related
in any manner to the Anti-Sterlite protests at Thoothukudi, be treated as
161(3) Cr.P.C. statements.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
19.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gautam Navlakha vs. National
Investigation Agency reported in CDJ 2021 SC 344 and submitted that if
the order of remand is passed absolutely in a mechanical manner, the person
affected can seek the remedy of Habeas Corpus.
20. The learned Public Prosecutor, by way of reply, submitted that the
petitioner cannot enlarge the scope of Habeas Corpus. She had filed this
Habeas Corpus Petition on the ground of apprehension for the life of her
husband and illegal detention. Admittedly, in Crime No.2 of 2023, the
petitioner's husband not obtained anticipatory bail or any protection. He
played an active role and conducted Kangaroo Court, extorted huge sums of
money to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- and further, put the victim under fear of
life. Ultimately, on 24.01.2023 Nachiyappan committed suicide. The
petitioner's husband along with the other accused abetted the suicide of said
Nachiyappan. The names of the persons, who are reason behind the suicide,
recorded by the deceased in his own handwriting, which was collected
during the investigation and the same was sent to Expert opinion and the
Expert opinion confirmed the handwritings of the deceased and thereafter,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
during investigation, several witnesses examined and the money withdrawal
its trail and the role played by each of the accused was confirmed both by
statement of witnesses and documents. The petitioner's husband is the
leader of the Kangaroo Court, who conspired with other accused and acted
in tandem with others including Police Officials. Finding sufficient material
and the petitioner's husband's active involvement in the case, he was
arrested and his arrest was duly intimated to his nephew, who signed in the
Arrest Memo. The petitioner's husband was taken to the Government
Hospital for medical check up and after obtaining fitness certificate, he was
produced before the Magistrate. Before the remanding Magistrate, no
allegation of illegal detention, ill-treatment and illegal remand made. The
remanding Magistrate thereafter, remanded him to judicial custody.
21. The petitioner's Advocate was also present during the remand. In
this case, the petitioner's contention with regard to similarity of offence, the
test of sameness is not proper and applicable on the facts and circumstances
of the case. Now, the case is under the stage of investigation and after
completion of investigation, appropriate steps can be taken, if required. It is
out of place to mention that one F.I.R. may lead to several charge sheets and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
several F.I.Rs. may lead to one charge sheet. It all depends upon the
outcome of the investigation and facts and circumstances of each case. In
this case, the petitioner dramatized the entire issue and got the indulgence of
this Court. The remanding Magistrate finding that there are grounds and the
information well founded, had authorized the detention of the petitioner's
husband to judicial custody. Once a judicial remand order has been passed,
there is no question of illegal detention. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition
is liable to be dismissed and the petitioner's husband to surrender before the
jail authorities without further delay.
22. The learned Public Prosecutor referring to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gautam Navlakha's case [cited supra]
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had considered under what
circumstance, Habeas Corpus Petition lies against an order of remand under
Section 167 Cr.P.C. and held that if the remand is absolutely illegal or the
remand is afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, a Habeas Corpus
petition would indeed lie. Equally, if an order of remand is passed in an
mechanical manner, the person affected can seek the remedy of Habeas
Corpus. In the present case, Crime No.2 of 2023 is registered on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
direction of this Court by the C.B.C.I.D. and thereafter, during
investigation, the petitioner's husband was arrested following the Supreme
Court's guidelines and he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate
namely, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai, who on
satisfying the reason and necessity of remand, applied his mind and
thereafter, remanded him to judicial custody. Hence, no Habeas Corpus
Petition will lie.
23. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the materials
available on record.
24. This Court had occasion to peruse the case diary of the cases. It is
not in dispute that the petitioner's husband obtained anticipatory bail in
Crime No.1 of 2023, investigated by CBCID, Sivagangai. Though the said
case was initially registered for the offences under Sections 211, 384, 389
and 306 I.P.C., later, it was altered to Sections 211, 384 and 389 I.P.C.,
deleting Section 306 I.P.C on 29.05.2023. The said Alteration Report
submitted to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai and the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
received by the Magistrate on 30.05.2023 and a copy of the Alteration
Report with Court seal and signature produced before this Court.
25. Admittedly, in this case, anticipatory bail in respect of Crime No.
1 of 2023 was granted on 27.06.2023. Thus, on the said date, the offences
investigated in Crime No.1 of 2023 are for the offences under Sections 211,
384 and 389 I.P.C alone considered. It is also seen that the offence in
Crime No.2 of 2023 has been altered from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Sections
306 and 120-B I.P.C. on 29.05.2023 and the same also informed to the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai.
26. Insofar as Crime No.2 of 2023 is concerned, the petitioner's
husband has not obtained any anticipatory bail or protection order. The
reference made with regard to the suicide and the circumstance of suicide by
Nachiyappan in the anticipatory bail order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11629 of
2023, would not automatically give any protection or insulate the
petitioner's husband from any coercive action by the Investigating Officer,
namely, the C.B.C.I.D., Pudukkottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
27. The Investigating Officer, by person, being one and the same in
both Crime Nos.1 of 2023 and 2 of 2023 would not automatically lead to an
inference that the alteration, deletion and inclusion in both the cases ought
to have been informed, while considering the anticipatory bail application of
the petitioner's husband in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11629 of 2023. The
Investigating Officer cannot be expected to disclose all the details of his
investigation, when the investigation is in progress.
28. It is also seen that the co-accused namely, Gunalan/Accused No.1,
Balaji/Accused No.4 and Devendran/Accused No.11 were arrested in Crime
No.2 of 2023 by the C.B.C.I.D., Pudukkottai, on 29.05.2023, 30.05.2023
and 02.06.2023 respectively and later, P.T. Warrant taken and they have
been shown arrest in another case. Thus, the investigation in both the cases
is ongoing. As and when the accused are arrested in one case, they have
been produced in another case by way of P.T. Warrant and there has been
transparency of investigation in this aspect. In such circumstances, it cannot
be gainsaid as a revenge for the petitioner's husband obtaining anticipatory
bail in respect of Crime No.1 of 2023 from this Court on 27.06.2023 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11629 of 2023, he had been forcibly taken without any
reason and later shown arrest with mala fide and illegal intention.
29. In view of the above, this Court finds that there is no threat to the
life of the petitioner's husband, no illegal detention and no violation of
Articles 21 or 22 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this Habeas Corpus
Petition is dismissed.
30. The Prison Superintendent, Pudukkottai, by communication dated
11.07.2023, informed this Court that the petitioner's husband was set at
liberty as per the orders of this Court, dated 10.07.2023. Now, in view of
the dismissal of this Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner's husband is
directed to surrender before the prison authorities forthwith. The
petitioner's husband namely, Velu @ Velukrishnan, S/o. Krishnan, shall be
taken into custody forthwith. It is however made clear that it will be open to
the accused to apply for bail before the appropriate Court in accordance
with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
31. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the
disposal of the Habeas Corpus Petition. The Courts concerned while
deciding the petitioner's husband's bail application or any other applications
shall pass orders on its own merits, without being influenced by the
observations and findings in this order.
Index : Yes/No (M.S.R., J.) (M.N.K., J.)
Internet: Yes/No 21.07.2023
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
smn2
To
1.The Inspector General of Police (South Zone CBCID),
No.77, 4th Street,
Ramond Reserve Line,
Race Course Colony,
Madurai – 625 002.
2.The Superintendent of Police (CBCID),
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai.
3.The Superintendent of Police (CBCID),
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police (CBCID),
Superintendent of Police Office,
Madurai District, Madurai.
6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBCID South,
Sivagangai District.
7.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID South,
Sivagangai District.
8.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID South,
Pudukkottai District.
9.The Inspector of Police,
Natchiyarpuram Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
10.The Superintendent of Prison,
Pudukkottai.
11.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2
Pre-delivery order made in
H.C.P.(MD)No.835 of 2023
21.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
