The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following specific procedures when accepting sureties in anticipatory bail cases and the sparing use of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

V. Periya Karuppiah, J.

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. Therea sons 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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a friend of the detenu. The detenu, A. Manikandan, was wrongly foisted with the case in Crime No. 221/2008 for offences under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 448, 384, 385 and 506(ii) I.P.C. on the allegation that the said detenu and others had threatened the defacto complainant at knife point on 2.4.2008 in a civil dispute between the landlord and the tenant (defacto complainant). The detenu A. Manikandan had filed an anticipatory bail application in Crl.O.P. No. 7904/2008. This Court also granted him anticipatorybail on 10.4.2008 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. Learned counsel would submitted that the detenu Manikandan had, in obedience to the order passed by this Court, produced two sureties before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettypalayam on 23.4.2008, and surrendered himself for obtaining anticipatory bail. Contrary to the procedure to be followed while accepting surety affidavits and ordering execution of bond, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettypalayam had sent the surety documents for verification on the objection of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and ordered remand of the detenu to judicial custody instead of releasing him. This order, according to the learned counsel, violates the right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the learned Judicial Magistrate Gobichettypalayam, was totally wrong in remanding the detenu Manikandan to judicial custody when he was armed with the anticipatory bail order granted by this Court and the said order of remand passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is illegal and therefore, the respondents are necessarily to be directed t