High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
K.S. Muthuramalingam
Versus
State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Commissioner Office, Coimbatore & Another
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1151 of 2010
Decided On : 01-07-2010
Habeas Corpus - Detention of Prisoner - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 267, Section 269 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 267 and Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deal with the power to require attendance of prisoners and circumstances under which a jail authority has to abstain from carrying out the order for production of a prisoner. The court emphasized that a P.T. warrant is not an authorization to curtail the liberty of a person and keep him in custody beyond the period of detention. It clarified that the continued detention of the petitioner beyond the date on which the bail bond was received by the prison authorities was illegal and ordered the release of the detenu.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the release of his son, who was detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore, contending that the continued detention was not authorized by law and violated his right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the continued detention of the detenu beyond the date on which the bail bond was received by the prison authorities was illegal and ordered his release.
Issues: The main issue was whether the detention of the detenu in the Central Prison was authorized by law and in compliance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a P.T. warrant is not an authorization to curtail the liberty of a person and keep him in custody beyond the period of detention. It clarified that the continued detention of the petitioner beyond the date on which the bail bond was received by the prison authorities was illegal.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, and the detenu was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody was authorized in connection with any other case.
(P.R. Shivakumar, J.)
1. The father of the detenu Sundar alias Raja is the petitioner in this Habeas Corpus Petition and he has sought for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the release of the above said detenu who has been lodged in Central Prison, Coimbatore.
2. As per the petition allegations, the detenu Sundar alias Raja was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in Crime No.16/2009, registered on the file of District Crime Branch, Coimbatore, for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC on 29.5.2009 and he was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, imposing conditions to produce documents showing assets worth Rupees One Crore and two sureties, having property worth Rs.50,00,000/-and to jointly execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. However, the said order was subsequently modified by removing the other conditions and imposing a condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum and the said order of modification was passed on 10.6.2010. It has also been stated in the petition that pursuant to the said order, bail bond was executed on 18.6.2010 by the sureties and the bail bond was sent to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore on the same day. However, the detenu Sundar alias Raja was not released by the Prison Authorities even after the submission of the bail bond as per the requirements found in the bail order granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam. Hence the petitioner has come forward with the present petition contending that the continued detention of the detenu in the Central Prison is not authorised by law and his right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated, necessitating this Court to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of the detenu and set him at liberty.
3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that even before the bail bond was received by the Jail Authorities in the case in which the detenu had been remanded to judicial custody, a P.T. Warrant was received from the III Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Porbandar, Gujarat in connection with Crime No.2576/2009, a case registered for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act; that due to non-availability of the escort police, the detenu could not be taken to Porbandar to be produced before the said Court and that subsequently on intimation to the said Court, successive P.T. Warrants came to be issued till date and a P.T. Warrant is pending at present, directing the production of the detenu on 23.7.2010. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that two more P.T. Warrants, one from III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and III Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bijapur and another from I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate of First Class, I Court GADAG, in connection with C.C.Nos.04/10 [P.C.No.123/2009] and C.C.No.05/2010 [P.C.No.124/2009] respectively with requests to produce the above said detenu before the said Courts on 23.7.2010, are pending execution and that the same was the reason why the detenu was not released pursuant to the execution of bail bond.
4. We heard the submissions made by Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the submissions made by Mr.Hassan Mohammed Jinnah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very purpose of issuing a P.T. Warrant is to produce a person who is lawfully confined in a prison to answer a charge or to be examined as a witness before a Criminal Court and the mere fact that P.T.Warrants have been issued shall not authorise the Prison Authorities to keep the prisoner in continued custody unless his custody is otherwise legally authorised.
6.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.