1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM H.C.P.(MD) No.98 of 2011 V.Ramalakshmi ..Petitioner versus 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary Home Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 4. The Inspector of Police, Y.Othakadai Police Station Y.Othakadai, Madurai District. 5. Bose, Police Constable, Special Crime Branch Team Madurai District, Madurai. ..Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the third respondent to produce the Corpus of the petitioner's son by name Kalaiselvan, aged about 24 years, who is illegally detained by the fifth respondent before this Court and to set him at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan For respondents : Mr.Isaac Manuel, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.) One Ramalakshmi, mother of the detenu Kalaiselvan, has filed this petition to direct the third respondent to produce the said Kalaiselvan who was illegally detained by the fifth respondent, by name, Bose, Police Constable, Special Crime Branch Team, Madurai District, Madurai. 2. It is seen from the affidavit herein that the fourth respondent, viz., the Inspector of Police came to the petitioner's house at mid night on 01.02.2011 searching for her son, aged about 24 years. Without assigning any reason, the petitioner's son was taken by the fifth respondent serving in the Special Crime Branch Team, Madurai District. Since the whereabouts of the petitioner's son was not made known to her, she sent a telegram to respondents-1 to 3 on 03.02.2011, apart from lodging a complaint to the fourth respondent on the same day. The same is evidenced by the postal receipt. The petitioner, prejudiced by the fact that the petitioner's son has been taken by the fifth respondent without assigning any reason, has filed this petition on 04.02.2011. The jurat portion in the affidavit states that the petitioner affixed her signature in the affidavit on 3rd January 2010. We find, this is a typographical error, since the docket bears the seal of this Court as 04.02.2011 and the other papers enclosed gives the copy of the representation dated 03.02.2011 and hence, we took it as 3rd February 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The petitioner was present before this Court on 4th February 2011. This Court ordered notice to the respondents herein through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on 07.02.2011 and thereafter, the matter stood adjourned twice, first on 21.02.2011 and second on 23.02.2011. 4. In the meantime, the detenu filed an affidavit through the counsel, wherein, he has stated that he was taken by the fifth respondent forcibly on 01.02.2011 from his house and he was attacked brutally by the fifth respondent and his associates and he sustained injuries and was not given any treatment. Ultimately, on coming to know that Habeas Corpus Petition had been filed before this Court, the fifth respondent released the detenu from custody. The affidavit also seeks necessary direction to be given to the first respondent to take action against the fifth respondent. 5. Today when the matter was taken up, the fourth respondent/ the Inspector of Police, Y.Othakadai Police Station, appeared before us. On enquiry, we were informed that the detenu was taken by the fifth respondent/Police Constable, Special Crime Branch Team, Madurai District, on 01.02.2011 without assigning any reason and that the detenu was let off on 05.02.2011. 6. When we enquired about the facts stated in the affidavit filed by the detenu, the fifth respondent did not deny the statement contained therein, nor could he produce any materials to substantiate the reason for taking the detenu on 01.02.2011. The detenu further stated that after release, he had his treatment in a private nursing home and he had been there with his cousin brother to avoid further harassment. On coming to know about the filing of this petition, he came forward to file the affidavit to place the above facts. 7. On our direction, even though the fifth respondent has come to this Court to attend the case, surprisingly, when the case was called, the fifth respondent was not there and was wandering outside the Court and on a specific enquiry from the Court, the fourth respondent confirmed this and he went to get the fifth respondent before this Court. Till we questioned the fifth respondent, the fifth respondent had not given any instructions to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Except for a mere submission by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that it was in connection with an enquiry that the detenu was taken on 01.02.2011, no materials were placed before this Court as regards the particulars with regard to any complaint or any pending case or on account of any suspicion, there are no materials placed before this Court to indicate the grounds on which the fifth respondent took the detenu to his custody. It is rather unfortunate that the fifth respondent had not given instructions even to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as regards the grounds on which the fifth respondent had taken custody of the detenu and to present the facts before this Court. 8. Even though the affidavit of the detenu was filed on 22.02.2011, so far there is no counter from the fifth respondent on the allegations made and no records were produced before this Court. Except the statement that at mid night on 01.02.2011, the detenu was taken in connection with an enquiry, for which no details are forthcoming, the fifth respondent could not explain his conduct in this matter. The fifth https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 respondent could not place any material to assist the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as to the basis on which the detenu was taken by the fifth respondent or by the members of the team in the Special Crime Branch on 01.02.2011. The fifth respondent has not produced even his pocket book. The indifferent attitude and the conduct of the fifth respondent thus, apart from bringing disrepute to the uniformed forces, reveals nothing short of disrespect and callousness to the proceedings before this Court. 9. We are constrained to accept the allegations in the affidavit filed by the detenu, particularly, the allegations made against the fifth respondent with regard to the assault on the detenu during his illegal custody. The complaint as regards the assault by the fifth respondent, thus remains unrebutted and on enquiry, the detenu also informed this Court that fearing dire consequences, the detenu could not disclose about his detention to anyone else. In matters concerning personal liberties of an individual, the officer in uniform should have conducted himself with dignity that there is no abuse of his process in the name of conducting enquiry. 10. We feel it is a fit case where the authorities concerned have to take a serious note on the conduct of the persons like the fifth respondent. If such excesses remain unchecked, this could cause a serious reflection on the integrity of the very institution and the confidence of the people in the institution. 11. In fitness of things, we direct the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, to enquire into the matter and take suitable action as regards the fifth respondent and those who were responsible in taking the detenu into custody, without any material, on their own. 12. Since the detenu is present before this Court, no further orders are required to be passed in this Habeas Corpus Petition. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ asvm /ksv SUB ASST REGISTRAR To 1. The Secretary, Home Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 4. The Inspector of Police, Y.Othakadai Police Station Y.Othakadai, Madurai District. 5. The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 1CC TO R. R. SARAVANAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 9818: DM:2011::MARCH:30::: H.C.P.(MD) No.98 of 2011 3P:7C;: Dated: 24.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/