Baby Ravi v. The Home Secretary, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.2. The Director General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.08.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIHabeas Corpus Petition No.1163 of 2006Baby Ravi..PetitionerVs.1. The Home Secretary, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.2. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai.3. The Inspector General of Police, Trichy Region, Trichy.4. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Town Police Station, Thiruvarur Town.5. The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam Ease Police Station, Kumbakonam.6. Vellaithurai, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Rowdy Cell, Trichy Region, I.G. Office, Trichy.7. Sethumanimathavan Sub Inspector of Police, Anti Rowdy Cell, I.G. Office, Trichy Region, Trichy...Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingfor issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct respondents 1 and 2 toproduce the body of P.Ravi, who is in illegal custody of the 5th to 7threspondents herein before this Court and set him at liberty on his ownbond.For Petitioner:Mr.R.Sankarasubbufor Mr.T.P.SenthilkumarFor Respondents:Mr.N.R.ElangoAddl.Public Prosecutor/RR1 to 5:Ms.A.Madhumathi for R-6 and R-7O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN, J.)The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, by name P.Ravi, who is asocial worker and Organising Secretary of "Tamilar Thanmana Peravai".According to the petitioner, the detenu/her husband was objecting to thebrutal custodial murder of one Dhanasekaran on 1.11.2001 at the ThiruvarurPolice Station and also sought transfer of investigation of the case toC.B.I. It is further stated that the police authorities, prejudiced bythe objections raised by the detenu, foisted several false cases againsthim and subsequently, when he was complying with the conditions imposed toappear before the fourth respondent twice daily at 8.30 a.m. and 7.30p.m., while granting bail by this Court by order dated 31.7.2006 inCrl.O.P.No.13221 of 2006, the detenu was again taken into illegal custodyby respondents 5 to 7 on 26.10.2006 and was beaten by them brutally withiron rods, as a result, his right leg was broken and there were alsomultiple fractures on his right leg, which necessitated the petitioner tomove the above Habeas Corpus Petition.2. This Court, by orders dated 29.11.2006, 1.12.2006, 5.12.2006,8.12.2006, 10.1.2007 and 24.1.2007 passed interim directions by directingthe respondents police to give all necessary medical treatments to thedetenu in the Government Hospital as well as in the Apollo Hospital. Itis not in dispute that the detenu had satisfactory treatment in thehospitals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. But, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on26.10.2006, when the fifth respondent chased the detenu to arrest him inconnection with Crime No.618 of 2006 on the file of the 5th respondentpolice, the detenu crossed a railway track, fell down and sufferedfracture. Thereafter, the fifth respondent police arrested him. Ofcourse, this submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor isstrongly disputed by Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner. Be that be. Concededly, the detenu was released on bail on2.1.2007 by an order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam andfrom then onwards, the detenu was no more in the prison nor he was underthe illegal custody of the respondents police. Strictly speaking, by suchrelease, this petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus had become infructuous.But, the story did not come to an end with that. 4. Taking note of the very serious allegation made byMr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly theapprehension of the detenu that respondents 5 to 7 attempted an encounteragainst the detenu on 26.10.2006, this Court, by order dated 25.1.2007,felt it just and proper to direct the learned District Judge,Nagapattinam, to hold an enquiry and submit a report in this regard. Atthis juncture, it would be more appropriate to refer the said order ofthis Court dated 25.1.2007, which reads as follows:-"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.2.The detenu is present in Court. We have requested thedoctor available in the High Court premises to examine him. Fromthe report of the doctor it appears that even though there is noexternal injury, there is swelling on the middle and lower onethird of the left leg. There is healed surgical scars in theoperated area. He has also stated that there is pain and loss ofsensation in the middle and lower one third of the left leg. Asper the opinion doctor, physiotherapy and rest is advisable andsimilarly there is necessity of elastro crepe bandage.Obviously, these matters would be considered by the doctor in-charge in the Government Hospital. It is open to the hospitalauthority to take whatever steps are required and to dischargethe detenu if in their opinion the detenu has to be discharged.3.Keeping in view of the contentions raised in the HabeasCorpus Petition and the submissions which have been made onbehalf of the State, we feel it is necessary in the interest ofjustice an enquiry shall be held by the District and SessionsJudge, Nagapattinam. The detenu shall appear before suchDistrict and Sessions Judge on 7.2.2007 on which date theDistrict and Sessions Judge shall fix a convenient date forenquiry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The registry is directed to send a copy of this orderalong with xerox copy of the Habeas Corpus Petition, counteraffidavit and all other relevant documents to the District andSessions Judge to facilitate the enquiry. The report should befurnished by 7th March 2007 and this matter shall be listed forhearing on 12th March 2007.5.The medical records which are given by the hospitalwill be also sent to the District and Sessions Judge,Nagapattinam.6.The detenu shall report before the hospital authoritiestoday."5. Accordingly, in compliance of the directions of this Court,learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, held an enquiry andsubmitted a detailed report dated 16.3.2007 rendering a finding asfollows:-"15. In my opinion the version given by the detenu regarding themanner in which he sustained injuries by an act of force upon himby Vellaidurai and Sethumanimadavan does not appear to beconvincing. The report is accordingly submitted as directed bythe Hon'ble High Court."The copy of the above said report dated 16.3.2007 is also furnished toboth the petitioner and the respondents. The said enquiry report dated16.3.2007 also contains the annexures, viz., Judges Notes and otherMiscellaneous Papers, Statement of witnesses and documents produced on theside of the petitioner and Statement of witnesses and documents producedon the side of the respondents.6. According to Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for thepetitioner, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, has notpermitted the detenu to cross-examine the witnesses examined by theenquiry officer and therefore, the learned Judge, ought not to haverendered a finding to the effect that the version given by the detenuregarding the manner in which he sustained injuries by an act of forceupon him by respondents 6 and 7, namely, Vellaidurai and Sethumanimadavandoes not appear to be convincing. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel,furhter contends that since apparently the detenu sustained grievousinjuries and was given treatment, he is entitled for compensation in theabove Habeas Corpus Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. It is true, in appropriate cases, this Court, exercising the powerconferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can awardcompensation in the case of injuries sustained by the detenu while incustody, provided if the Court is satisfied with the substantial materialsavailable in that regard. But, unfortunately, in the instant case, thisCourt having ordered for an enquiry by the learned District and SessionsJudge, Nagapattinam and the learned Judge having rendered a finding in thereport dated 16.3.2007 to the effect that the version given by the detenuregarding the manner in which he sustained injuries by an act of forceupon him by Vellaidurai and Sethumanimadavan does not appear to beconvincing, it may not be proper to refuse to accept the report or toaward compensation in spite of lack of materials to do so. But, at thesame time, the petitioner as well as the detenu are not left out withoutany remedy for appropriate relief against such alleged brutal attack byrespondents 5 to 7 and to claim compensation, if so advised, in accordancewith law.8. Therefore, as already stated, taking note of the fact that thedetenu was in judicial custody and subsequently, he was enlarged on bailby an order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, dated 2.1.2007and from then onwards, he was no more in prison nor was under any illegalcustody, we feel that no further orders are required in this Habeas CorpusPetition except to give the liberty to the detenu to work out his rightsseeking appropriate relief against such alleged brutal attack byrespondents 5 to 7 and for claiming compensation, in the manner known tolaw, in which event, the concerned Court or Forum shall permit the detenuas well as the respondents to substantiate their respective case and passappropriate orders on merits, without being prejudiced by the findingrendered by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in thereport dated 16.3.2007 or by any of the observations made in any of theinterim orders passed by this Court in the above H.C.P.9. We also add that when a serious apprehension is projected onbehalf of the detenu that the detenu will be subjected to encounter, it isalso the duty of the State to remove such apprehension in the minds of anyperson to that extent. Reposing our strong confidence on the respondentspolice in this regard, we close the above Habeas Corpus Petition with theobservations referred to above. sraSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Home Secretary, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.2. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai.3. The Inspector General of Police, Trichy Region, Trichy.4. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Town Police Station, Thiruvarur Town.5. The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam Ease Police Station, Kumbakonam.6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Rowdy Cell, Trichy Region, I.G. Office, Trichy.7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.+1 cc to Mr.I.P.Senthil Kumar, Advocate Sr.No.53337.+1 cc to M/s.A.Madhumathi, Advocate Sr.No.52577.BV(CO)dcp/6.9HCP No.1163 of 2006