Dismissed

Ilayaraja v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Apr 2011HCP(MD)/286/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition filed by uncle of detenu Raman to secure release alleging illegal detention in Juvenile Home. Court found detenu completed 18 years in 2010 and is in judicial custody at Borstal School, not illegally detained. Petition dismissed with direction to approach Magistrate for bail.

What did the court decide?

Habeas corpus petition dismissed. Detenu directed to file bail application before Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.

Ilayaraja Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI H.C.P(MD)No.286 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶4

Ilayaraja

¶5

vs.

¶6

The State rep by the Inspector of Police, Sanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul District. .. Respondent

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondent to produce the body and person of the detenu, Raman, son of Muniyappan, now confined at Juvenile Home, Madurai and set him at liberty on any conditions as this Court may deem fit.

¶8

For petitioner : Mr.M.Seeni Sulthan

¶9

for M/s.K.Kesavan

¶10

For respondent : Mr.P.N.Pandidurai Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN,J)

¶13

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the uncle of the detenu, named Raman, son of Muniyappan to set the detenu at liberty.

¶14

The detenu was arrested by the respondent police for the alleged offence under sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC in connection with the Crime No.113/2011 on 29.3.2011.

¶15

According to the petitioner, there were three accused and all of them were treated as juvenile and they were produced before the Juvenile Justice Board at Madurai and the detenu was also lodged in the Juvenile Home at Madurai. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the present application to produce the body of the detenu on the ground that he is illegally detained in the Juvenile Home.

¶16

When the matter was taken up yesterday, this Court directed the Registry to call for the records from the Juvenile Justice Board at Madurai.

¶17

Consequently, a report dated 9.4.2011 has been received from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Chairperson of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai wherein it is stated that the detenu has completed 18 years on 2.6.2010 and now he is

¶18

¶19

not a juvenile and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul on 7.4.2011 and detained at Borstal School, Melur.

¶20

From the above report, we find there is no illegal detention and the petitioner is at liberty to seek the appropriate relief before the Judicial Magistrate.

¶21

However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Seeni Sulthan, submits that, the petitioner was in illegal custody for the last 10 days and therefore, he may be set at liberty.

¶22

We do not see any force in the argument as no relief could be granted her as the petitioner is in judicial custody. However, in view of the submission made, we direct the detenu or the petitioner to file a bail application before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul is directed to consider the bail application on the same day as the offence alleged is one of simple injury and not grave injury, under Section 506 (ii) IPC.

¶23

With the above direction, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶24

sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (C.O)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S)

¶28

¶29

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.3, DINDIGUL.

¶30

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SANARPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶31

THE PRESIDING OFFICER, JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, MADURAI.

¶32

THE HEAD MASTER, BORSTAL SCHOOL, MELUR.

¶33

5.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶34

- 1 cc Mr.K.Kesavan, Advocate, SR No.13239

¶35

H.C.P.(MD)No.286 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶36

09.04.2011

¶37

(asvam)

¶38

RJ/9.4.11 (IT) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2p/7c

Ilayaraja v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ilayaraja v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malarkodi Vs the Superintendent of Poilce

N.Ayyanar Vs Superintendent of Police

Panneer Selvam Vs the Inspector of Police

Pappathi Ammal Vs Superintendent of Police

The Commissioner Vs V.S. Kuppanna Gounter

Jeyanthi Vs the Inspector of Police