ITA DÏ¿½MONTE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : These two habeas corpus petitions are disposed of together by a common order, on the ground of expediency, for the detenus concerned in both these petitions are stated to be involved in the same crime and arguments advanced are identical.

(2.) ITA DMonte petitioner in H.C.P.No. 2257 of 1993 is the wife of Alistair D"Monte, who has been detained under the provisions of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "TADA ACT").

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, Alister D"Monte was arrested suddenly on 12.10.1993 when he went over to report before the Inspector of Police, Maduravoyal, while other detenus, except Shankar, were similarly arrested on 9.10.1993 when they had gone over to Maduravoyal Police Station to report, in compliance with the conditions imposed in the anticipatory bail order. Detenu Shankar was arrested on 12.10.1993. ACCORDING to the petitioners, respective detenus were not intimated about the grounds of their arrest. Further, petitioners were also not intimated about such arrest of the detenus by the arresting officials. However, petitioners chose to enquire at Maduravoyal Police Station, when they were informed about the arrest of the respective detenus under the provisions of TADA Act by the respondent, who had taken over investigation. When they made further enquiries from the respondent, they were informed that the respective detenus had been already produced before Designated Court No. II, Madras under the Special Act, and the said court had remanded them to prison. Petitioners claim, to have met the detenus at Central Prison, Madras and asked them the reasons for their re-arrest in the same case, in which most of them had obtained anticipatory bail. The reply of the detenus was, that they were not informed by the respondent about the grounds of their arrest and they were totally unaware of the cause.