Madras High Court
Pushpa vs ) The Superintendent Of Central Jail on 2 January, 2024
Author: J. Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
H.C.P.(MD)Nos.1624 to 1630 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
H.C.P.(MD)Nos.1624 to 1630 of 2023
H.C.P.(MD)No.1624 of 2023:
Pushpa ... Petitioner /
Mother of Detenu
vs.
1) The Superintendent of Central Jail,
Trichy Central Prison,
Trichy.
2) The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
3) The Inspector of Police,
Keelaiyur Police Station,
Nagapattinam District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents herein to produce
the petitioner's son namely Veera Murasu s/o Rajamanickam, aged about 29
____________
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)Nos.1624 to 1630 of 2023
years, now confined at Central Prison, Trichy as a remand prisoner before
this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.Jameel Arasu. B
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Sethuraman,
Additional Public Prosecutor
******
COMMON ORDER
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
As the issue involved in these Habeas Corpus Petitions, is one and the
same, all petitions are taken up together for disposal and this common order
is passed.
2. The petitioner herein, is the mother of the detenu namely Veera
Murasu, who is confined at Central Prison, Trichy along with 7 other persons
in connection with the case in Crime No.275/2023 under Sections 8(C) 20(b)
III)(c) 29(1) & 25 of NDPS Act 1985 for an alleged offence that took place
on 08.11.2023 on the file of the third respondent police. Upon registering of
the above case, the accused persons were produced before the learned District
cum Judicial Magistrate, Keelvelur on 09.11.2023 and they were remanded to
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)Nos.1624 to 1630 of 2023
judicial custody till 23.11.2023. It is the specific contention made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent failed to produce
all the arrested persons on 23.11.2023. Instead of producing the accused
persons before the concerned Court for remand extension, they have been
confined at Central Prison, Trichy without any authorisation and they have
been kept in judicial custody beyond the 15 days remand period.
3. While so, on 29.11.2023 the accused persons were produced before
the Additional District Sessions Judge (NDPS)Act, Thanjavur for remand
extension. The learned Judge declined to entertain the same. Again on
30.11.2023, the third respondent police produced the accused persons before
the learned Judge and that time, the Court accepted the request for remand
extension sought for by the respondent police.
4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that only with a view to ratify
the illegal detention of the accused persons, the third respondent police has
sought for remand extension, after 7 days of illegal custody and there is no
explanation for the above said illegal custody. Aggrieved against the same,
the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)Nos.1624 to 1630 of 2023
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
materials available on record.
6. Perusal of records would show that the Additional District Sessions
Judge (NDPS)Act, Thanjavur by relying upon the judgment made in Kurra
Dasaratha Ramaiah and others vs. State of Andhra Pradhesh dated
04.02.1992, has ordered remand extension. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is extracted as under:-
“ it is always open to either the prosecuting agency or the
jail authority to put forward a plea of impossibility of production
of an accused person before the learned Magistrate and if the
learned Magistrate is satisfied that the plea is well founded, he
may, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the
remand of the accused person even without his production. We,
however, hasten to add that non-availability of escorts for non-
production of the accused person hardly constitutes a ground for
infraction of the mandatory requirement of Section 167(2)(b) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure”.
7. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Serious Fraud
Investigation Office vs. Rahul Modi and another reported in (2019) 5 SCC
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)Nos.1624 to 1630 of 2023
266, at paragraph no.19 has observed as follows:-
“19. The law is thus clear that “in Habeas Corpus
proceedings a Court is to have regard to the legality or
otherwise of the detention at the time of the return and not
with reference to the institution of the proceedings”. In Kanu
Sanyal8 the validity of the detention of the petitioner in
District Jail, Darjeeling was therefore not considered by this
Court and it was observed that the infirmity in the detention of
the petitioner therein in the District Jail, Darjeeling could not
invalidate subsequent detention of the petitioner in the Central
Jail, Vishakhapatnam.”
8. In the present case on hand, the order of remand has been extended
by the Magistrate himself and therefore, in a Habeas Corpus proceedings, the
Court has to have regard to the legality or otherwise of the detention at the
time of the return and not with reference to the institution of the proceedings.
The validity of the detention of the petitioner even if there is infirmity, could
not invalidate subsequent detention of the petitioner.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the considered opinion that based upon the above findings rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the findings rendered by the High
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)Nos.1624 to 1630 of 2023
Court of Andhra Pradhesh, the Habeas Corpus Petition itself is not
maintainable. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petitions are dismissed. No
costs. If the petitioners are aggrieved, then they have to approach the
appropriate forum seeking remedy, by way of filing bail applications.
[J.N.B.,J.] & [K.K.R.K.,J.]
02.01.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
sts
To:
1) The Superintendent of Central Jail,
Trichy Central Prison,
Trichy.
2) The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
3) The Inspector of Police,
Keelaiyur Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD)Nos.1624 to 1630 of 2023
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
bala
Common Order made in
H.C.P.(MD)Nos.1624
to 1630 of 2023
Dated:
02.01.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
