NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.

1. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed seeking for production of the detenu, by name, Babu @ Shahul Hameed, S/O Kaja Moideen and to set him at liberty.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband, by name, Babu @ Shahul Hameed, has been taken into custody by the second respondent/ Deputy Superintendent of Police, Counterfeit Currency Wing, Egmore, Chennai, on 03.6.2014 at 22.30 hours, in connection with a criminal case booked against him. It is her specific case that the said criminal case in Criminal Case No.49 of 2014 is still pending on the file of the Special Court for Unlawful Activities Act, 1967-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. It is also her case that no progress in the case is made, that so far, only one witness, namely, P.W.1 has been examined and that since nearly 40 witnesses have been cited, there is no possibility of the trial getting completed in quick time. Therefore, the prolonged custody of the detenu should be considered and treated as illegal and breach of the fundamental right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 21 of The Constitution.

3. It is more specifically urged that the detenu was not produced before the Special Court on 09.5.2017 and hence, the custody of the detenu beyond 09.5.2017 is illegal, unjust and violative of Article 21 of The Constitution. It is the case of the writ petitioner that she drew an appropriate representation on 15.5.2017 and submitted the same to the State Government, but there is no response thereto.

4. Sri R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detenu has been remanded as long back as 03.6.2014 and the offences, which have been booked against him, are all bail-able offences, but yet, no consideration whatsoever has been shown for enlarging him on bail. According to him, no efforts are also made by the State to prosecute the detenu promptly and expeditiously and hence, as the Fundamental Right guaranteed for speedy trial being a facet of Article 21 of The Constitution, the detention of the individual has become bad and unsustainable. It is also further contended by the learned counsel that the detenu has not been physically produced before the Court on 09.5.2017 and, as such, the detention of the detenu on and from 09.5.2017 has become unjust and illegal. Also, he would contend that in spite of protest, the subsequent remand orders are passed and such remand orders passed subsequently will not render the detention legally valid and tenable.

5. According to the learned counsel, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act requires the link to be established between the accused persons and those, who answer the description of the word 'terrorist' and in the absence of any such link, the detention becomes invalid. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that on 08.11.2016, a decision was announced treating the hitherto existing Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- currency notes as no longer legal tender and that once this decision is given effect to, the entire allegations made against the detenu have lost the sting behind them.

6. Apart from the above, the learned counsel has also pressed for urgent consideration of the bail application of the detenu on the ground that if the substantial period of the possible sentence that can be handed down is treated as already undergone, the detenu deserves to be enlarged on bail automatically.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Singh Vs. State of Delhi and Others [reported in AIR 1953 SC 277]. He has also placed reliance upon another judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M.A. Dharman Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [reported in 1991 (1) ALT 315].

8. Let us examine the relevant legal principles.

9. Chapter V of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains the detailed procedure for arrest of persons. Section 41(1) authorizes any Police Offic