D VEERASEKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming on for orders on Friday, the 3rd and Monday the 6th days of January, 1992, upon perusing the petition and the orders of the Designated Court under T.A.D.A. Act and the records in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N. Ganapathy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. I. Subramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State / respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following order :- This petition is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the Designated Court, u/S. 20(8) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (Act No. 28 of 1987), refusing to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the petition are :

(3.) The petitioner herein was arrested on 25-11-1991 at his residence on a non-bailable warrant issued by the Designated Court and he was produced before the Designated Court with remand filed under Section 167, Cr. P.C. read with Section 20(4)(b) of TADA Act, 1987. It is stated in the said report that one Gundu Santhan alias Santhan was involved in the Padmanabha murder case and he has been proclaimed as an offender by the Designated Court under TADA Act. On 1-11-1991, accused A. 18 one Vasanthan was arrested in the said Padmanabha murder case and an unsigned letter has been seized from his possession on and in para 3 of the letter, it is stated as follows : (Matter in Vernacular omitted) He has stated that the said letter was written by the petitioner herein. On 10-11-1991, a Xerox copy of the letter, alleged to have been written by the petitioner was received through post by the Superintendent of Police 'Q' Branch, C.I.D., Madras and both the letters were sent to the document expert. The document expert opined that both letters were written by one and the same person and as such it is stated in the remand report that it is evident that the petitioner herein had abetted accused Gundu Santhan alias Santhan to escape from the clutches of law. It is also stated therein that investigation has revealed that the petitioner herein, who has been arrayed as Accused A-27, was involved in the murder case of Padmanabha and others. A request was made that the petitioner may be ordered to be remanded to judicial custody for a period of 30 days. The petitioner preferred Crl. M.P. No. 193 of 1991 in Cr. No. 1205 of 1990 before the Designated Court, under Section 20(8) of the TADA Act and Section 437 of Cr. P.C. It is stated in that petition that he has been falsely implicated in the above Crime No. 1205 of 1990 with ulterior motive of threatening the advocates who appear for any of the accused in the abovementioned padmanabha murder case as well as in the murder case of Rajiv Gandhi. It is also stated in the said petition that the petitioner herein has appeared as counsel for some of the accused in both cases mentioned above and that there is no material to connect him with the crime in Crime No. 1205 of 1990. It is further stated in the said petition, that the petitioner is an advocate by profession, that he is a permanent resident of the city of Madras and that there is no likelihood of for committing any offence while he is on bail. This was opposed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, who is appearing for cases under TADA Act.