ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)

The Habeas Corpus Petition was posted before us under the caption, 'for maintainability'.

2. On 14.11.2022, we passed the following order:

“This Habeas Corpus Petition was listed under the caption "for maintainability".

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the son of the petitioner has been virtually swapped in the place of the original accused (A5). Hence, according to the learned Senior Counsel, it is a clear case of an innocent being made to undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal prosecution and more particularly, in a case involving narcotic drugs.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised serious objections on the maintainability of this petition. However, considering the seriousness of the allegations raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, we want to go through the entire case diary in this case and come to a conclusion.

4. Hence, post this case under the same caption on

18.11.2022. The respondent Police is directed to produce the entire case diary.”

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police submitted that there are materials to show that there were money transactions between A1 and the detenu (A5) and money has been credited to the bank account of the detenu. That apart, even when A1 confessed, he mentioned the name of the detenu atleast on 40 occasions. In view of the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is absolutely no doubt with regard to the identity of the detenu.

4. In the present case, the petitioner took an objection regarding mistaken identity even when the detenu was produced for remand before the learned Judicial Magistrate and even after considering the same, the learned Magistrate had remanded the detenu to judicial custody. Thereafter, the detenu filed two bail petitions before the competent Court and both the bail petitions came to be dismissed. In view of these facts, the custody of the detenu cannot be termed to be an illegal custody. Whether there was a mistaken identity and the detenu has been falsely roped in this case, is a matter of fact, which cannot be decided in a Habeas Corpus Petition. Hence, it will be left open to the petitioner to raise all these grounds before the competent Court and work out his remedy. Except giving this clarity, no further orders are required to be passed in the Habeas Corpus Petition. The objection raised by the Registry is sustained and this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed as not maintainable. [M.S.R.,J] [N.A.V.,J]

18.11.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes RR To

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise department Fort St. George, Chennai 9

4.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Arasaradi, Madurai.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

M.S. RAMESH , J .

AND N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

RR HCP(MD).No.SR39272 of 2022

18.11.2022