MUTHUSAMY Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is as follows: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner as compensation for illegal detention over eight months and pass such further order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper. This petition has been signed on 11th day of September 1990 and the respondents are Union Territory of Pondicherry and Inspector of Police, CBCID, Pondicherry.

(2.) The petitioner Muthusamy, who claims compensation has sworn to an affidavit in support of his prayer in the writ petition, and the salient facts stated therein are as follows: The petitioner was one of the accused in S.C.No. 9/88 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, the offence alleged against him being punishable under Ss. 120B, 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code. He was released on bail, in the said case on 16-6-1984. While he was on bail he was falsely implicated in another Sessions Case in S.C. No. 126 of 1985 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Coimbatore. In S.C. No. 126 of 1985 on a charge of murder he was sentenced to death by a judgment dated 30-6-1987 and in pursuance thereof he was detained at the Central Prison Coimbatore. The petitioner was transmitted to Central Prison Pondicherry on the basis of prisoners transfer warrant to facilitate his participation in the trial in S.C. No. 9 of 1988 before the Pondicherry Court The petitioner preferred an appeal against the capital sentence awarded to him by the Coimbatore Sessions Court. R. T. 12 of 1987, which was taken up along with the petitionerTs appeal in C.A. 544 of 1987 by this Court, ended in his acquittal, by judgment dated 10th August 1988. The order of this Court was communicated to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore as well as the Chief Superintendent of jail, Pondicherry. The petitioner was not set at liberty even after his acquittal on 10-8-1988, though in S.C. No. 9 of 1988 he was already on bail. His remand was being extended from time to time. His oral plea was not entertained and he was directed to file an application for bail. The petitioner preferred a bail application setting out all details with specific reference to his acquittal. But he was not released by this Court due to the false representation made by the respondents that the petitioner had never been enlarged on bail earlier and his release would affect the fair trial of the case, since it was apprehended that he would jump bail and flee from justice. The aforesaid representation of the respondents was palpably false since it was contrary to the order passed under Section 167 Cr.P.C. If the respondents had not mis-directed this Court, he would have been released on bail and his plea would not have been turned down. The respondents were legally bound to give true information of all the facts and circumstances without misleading this court. In view of such misrepresentation, the petitioner had suffered illegal detention for over eight months and the same may have to be adequately compensated. The petitioner had estimated the compensation to be awarded at Rs. 50,000/-.

(3.) The second respondent N. Stalin Jasan, Inspector of Police, CBCID Branch, Pondicherry, has filed a counter affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the first respondent. He has stated, that a writ for issue of habeas as framed cannot be maintained. On the date of filing of the application, the petitioner was not in illegal custody, he having been released on bail by the Court of Session, Pondicherry on 10-4-1989. When the petitioner filed this writ petition in September 1989, he was not in custody and a writ simpliciter for compensation cannot be maintained. The second respondent has also stated in his counter affidavit, that the petitioner had neither made any bail application before this Court nor the second respondent or any other officer objected to the release of the petitioner on bail. Therefore there was no scope for having disputed the earlier enlargement of the petitioner on bail, pending trial in the Pondicherry Sessions Case or raising objection that in the event of release he would jump bail. This was false and baseless allegation. The petitioner had suppressed several facts and had placed contradictory material to suit his convenience. The petition which is vague and without definite details, entails dismissal. The petitioner had moved an application before this court in Crl.M.P. No. 3649 of 1989 to recall the warrant issued in S.C. No. 9 of 1988 on the file of the first Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. On that application being ordered, the petitioner was released on 10-4-1989.