R SELVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE very interesting question raised in the present Habeas Corpus Petition is whether the order of remand dated 13.7.2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District, remanding the husband of the Petitioner one S. Ramesh alleged to be a fugitive Criminal involved in an offence of murder at Singapore, during the year 1998, murdering his wife and left the soil of Singapore and hiding in India, at the request of the Attorney General of Singapore pursuant to a warrant issued by a District Judge, Singapore, is sustainable in law.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: One Dorairaju S/o. Sidambaram was suspected for a murder of one Arputhamariya, who was found dead on 24th September 1998 at her residence at Singapore. THE suspect was her Husband Dorairaju S/o. Sidambaram. THE summary of facts of the case would reveal that the said person suspected the infidelity of his wife and caused fatal injuries and informed his brother to take care of his sons and left for India on 23rd September, 1998. A case for murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 of Singapore is pending investigation. On 6th July 2010, the Singapore Police received information that the suspect is in India under the name "S. Ramesh" and he is residing at 407, Main Road, Karampalayam, Pattukottai, Tanjavur District, Tamil Nadu. A request to verify the identity of the said person was made through Interpol, NCB, New Delhi, who requested the C.B., C.I.D., and the identity was verified by exchanging the finger prints of the suspect. A warrant of arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code of Singapore was issued to the Commissioner of Police Singapore on 8th July, 2010 for the arrest and for the production of the accused by the District Judge, Singapore. On 12th July 2010, a request was made by the Attorney General?s Chamber, Singapore to the Ministry of External Affairs, New2 Delhi, for the request of provisional arrest of Dorairaju S/o, Sidambaram @ S. Ramesh, who is wanted in a murder case at Singapore. This request was forwarded along with brief facts of the case, warrant of arrest, Photo and Thumb imprison of the fugitive Criminal. On 12.7.2010 itself the Deputy Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Interpol, India, intimated the Additional Director General of Police CBCD, Chennai, about the arrest, as requested by the Singapore authorities. On the same day, a memorandum WAS ISSUED BY THE Additional Director General of Police CBCID Chennai, to the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Thanjavur, under which, he was instructed to get the provisional warrant from the Judicial Magistrate concerned, under the provision of Indian Extradition Act, 1962 (herein after referred to as ?the Extradition Act?), for the provisional arrest and Judicial custody of the said Dorairaju. 1. On 13.7.2010, the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Thanjavur, arrested and produced the said S. Ramesh, the alleged suspect, wanted by the Singapore Authorities, by name Dorairaju S/o. Sidambaram and was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District, for the offence under Section 302 of Penal Code, Chapter 224 of Singapore and the learned Magistrate had accepted the production and remanded the said person under Section 15 of the Extradition Act, on 13.7.2010 at 3.30 p.m. Initially, the remand was made for seven days till 19.7.2007 and thereafter, periodically extended. 1. However, the wife of the detenu had filed a Habeas Corpus Petition before the Principal bench of this Court, at Madras in H.C.P.No.1576 of 2010 alleging that the detention was illegal. Simultaneously, a Bail Application was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru in Crl.M.P. No.4333 of 2010 stating that Section 15 of the Extradition Act, which comes under Chapter III of the Act, shall not apply to the Republic of Singapore and therefore, the remand is illegal. However, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the Application. H.C.P.NO.1576 of 2010 was also dismissed as withdrawn on 21.9.2010 with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Bench. THErefore, the Petitioner, the wife of the detenu, has filed the present habeas Corpus Petition to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to cause the production of detenu and to set him at liberty. Along with the main Petition the following Miscellaneous Petition has also been filed:

(3.) HOWEVER, by the direction of this Court, the detenu was brought back from the Tihar Jail and the status-quo ante was restored.