N SUBRAMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is said to be the uncle of the detenu, has filed the above Habeas Corpus Petition to direct respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenu P.Sivabalan, S/o P.C.Palanisamy, bodily before this Court and set him at liberty and consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to act in accordance with law.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

(3.) THE above said detenus in H.C.P.No.1092 of 2008 viz. (i) P.C. Palanisamy, son of P.S. Chinnasamy, (ii) Malarvizhi, wife of P.C. Palanisamy and (iii) P. Sivabalan, son of P.C. Palanisamy were produced before a Division Bench of this Court on 29.7.2008 and even the detenu in H.C.P.No.1114 of 2008 was present before the Court on 26.8.2008. The Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the detenus and the learned senior counsel appearing for them and upon considering the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, has found that as on the date of passing the order, the detenus were not illegally detained by anybody and considering their plea that they are desirous to go to their home town i.e. Perundurai, and has dismissed the H.C.Ps., by the order dated 27.8.2008. S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6748 of 2008 filed, challenging the said order of the Division Bench of this Court, by the petitioner therein, was also dismissed, by the order dated 22.9.2008. It has been observed by the Honourable Apex Court that the petitioner is not prevented from moving a fresh Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court on account of fresh developments.