Illegal detention validated by order of detention u/s 309.

Janarthanam, J.

Desirable it is, to pen down a common order, inasmuch as the question involved for consideration in all these actions, is one and the same, although the relief sought for is relatable to different persons-detenus.

2. One Vetriselvi is the petitioner in all these actions, which had been filed by her, in her capacity, either as a relative or as a next friend of the alleged Detenus.

3. H.C.P. Nos.132 and 134 of 1996 are relatable to one Pandian alias Otthakai Pandian, who is said to have been involved in two different transactions- the occurrence relating to one of the transactions is said to have happened on 19. 1995 at Yanaikuttipalam at 14.00 hours, in the sense of his being found in possession of arms and ammunitions, resulting in the registration of a case in Crime No.372 of 1995 on the file of Portonovo Police Station, and in the other transaction, the occurrence is said to have happened on 29. 1995 at about 22.45 hours at Therukadai, in which the part played by him was for the offence of conspiracy under Sec. 120-B, I.P.C. in relation to the murders of one Ramajayam and one Gopal, besides inflicting injuries on certain others, resulting in the registration of a case in Crime No.373 of 1995 for alleged offences under Secs.147 148, 341, 324, 325, 120-B and 302, I.P.C, as against him and the respective detenus in H.C.P. Nos.133 and 135 to 138 of 1996 and certain others. One Mathivanan, Thamburan, Ramesh, Velmurugan and Kaliamurthi, are the alleged detenus concerned in H.C.P. Nos. 133 and 135 to 138 of 1995.

4. (a) Pandian alias Otthakai Pandian was stated to have been arrested in Crime No.372 of 1995 on 19. 1995, and remanded to judicial custody on the same day. In Crime No.373 of 1995, he was likewise shown arrest and remanded to judicial custody on 29. 1995.

.(b) Mathivanan and Thamburan, it is said, were arrested on 29. 1995 in Crime No.373 of 1995 and remanded to judicial custody on 29. 1995.

.(c) Likewise, Ramesh, Velmurugan and Kaliamurthi, it is said were arrested on 29. 1995 and remanded to judicial custody on the same day.

.(d) This apart, Pandian alias Otthakai Pandian, it is said, has been detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 on 11. 1995.

5. (a) The prescribed statutory period of sixty days, beyond which extension of remand under Sec. 157, Crl.P.C. is not permissible in Crime No.372 of 1995 expired on 111. 1995.

(b) Likewise, the statutory period of ninety days in Crime No.373 of 1995 as relatable to Mathivanan, Pandian alias Otthakai Pandian and Thamburan expired on 212. 1995 and in the case of Ramesh, Velmurugan and Kaliamurthi involved in Crime No.373 of 1995 expired on 212. 1995.

6. It is only subsequent to the expiry of the statutory period of 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, as stated above, the bail application in respect of all of them had been filed on two different dates, namely one on 212. 1995 and the other on 212. 1995. Pandian alias Otthakai Pandian filed two separate bail applications before the court below, one in C.M.P. No.3024 of 1995 and other in C.M.P. No.3023 of 1995, joining with Mathivanan and Thambiran. Likewise, Ramesh, Velmurugan and Kaliamurthi filed Joint Bail Application in C.M.P. No.3037 of 1995.

7. It is only subsequent to the filing of the bail application, final report in both the crime numbers, as stated above, under Sec. 173(2), Crl.P.C. had been filed on 1. 1996.

8. In the meantime, in this bail application, notices were ordered returnable by 1. 1996, on which date, arguments were heard and it was posted for orders on 1. 1996. 1. 1996 was later declared as a local holiday and consequently, orders were pronounced on 1. 1996, dismissing all those bail applications, giving rise to the present actions- H.C.P. Nos. 132 to 138 of 1996.

9. From the submissions of Mr. R. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (in all these actions) and Mr. I. Subramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents (in all