RAMDOSS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a report by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime (General), Egmore, Madras-8, X Crime No. 1899/92 under Ss. 120-B, 124-A, 153A(1)(a)(b), 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 13(1) and 13(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, has been registered. Petitioners herein were taken in custody in connection with the said case, and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.

(2.) Mr. T. V. Subramaniyan, who is in charge of regular Court No. X, since the Court of the regular Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was vacant, held the charge of the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and ordered for remand of the petitioners on 18-9-1992. This order passed under Sub-Sec. (2) of S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was evidently on the report of the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned who, after arresting the petitioners herein and obtaining them into custody, was duty bound to produce them before a Magistrate as required under Art. 22(2) of the Constitution of India and under S. 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if it appeared to him that the investigation could not be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by S. 57, Cr. P.C. (Art. 22(2) of the Constitution) and there were grounds for believing that the accusation or information was well-founded and that a further detention of the accused was necessary. Mr. T. V. Subramaniyan, the Magistrate, however, entertained at this stage a contention raised by the counsel for the accused that they were implicated on political grounds and that the Court should peruse the first information report as to whether the ingredients of the alleged offences were made out and they should be heard accordingly. He accordingly perused the first information report along with Ss. 120-B, 124(A), 153(A)(1)(a) and (b) and 505(1)(b), I.P.C. and Ss. 13(1) and 13(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and heard learned counsel for the parties. His order upon that is extracted after making as many corrections as possible :

(3.) Two of the petitioners herein, viz., D. S. Ramadoss and Panruti S. Ramachandran applied in M.P. No. 1057/92 and the otherwise, viz., Thiagarajan alias Thiyagu and Kadal Dhanasekaran applied in M.P. 1058/92 for bail. Mr. T. V. Subrabaniyan ordered as follows : "Order dated 18-9-1992 (M.P. 1057/92) Heard PP. Common reply received. The accused are released on bail on their own bond for Rs. 1000/- each." "Order dated 18-9-1992 (M.P. 1058/92) Heard PP. Reply received. The accused are released on bail on their own bond on executing a bond for Rs. 1000/- each." Accordingly the petitioners executed bonds and were released on bail.