AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—HCP No. 528 of 2004 is for a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the production of detenu Jeeva @ Raja before this
Court and set him at liberty forthwith and further to declare Jeeva''s detention for the past nine months in Cr.No. 340/2003 of the Palladam Police
Station, the fourth respondent as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to provide adequate punitive compensation to Jeeva @ Raja.
HCP No. 529 of 2004 is for a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the production of detenu Manickam before this Court and set him at liberty
forthwith and further to declare Manickam''s detention for the past 27 months in Cr.Nos. 22/01, 224/01, 6/02, 23/02, 76/00, 314/01 of the Police
Stations of respondents 3, 5, 6 and 7 as illegal and consequently, direct the first respondent to provide adequate punitive compensation to
Manickam.
The petitioner in both the petitions, who is a practising Advocate, of course claiming as a next friend of the detenu, seeks the above relief, purely
on the grounds that the custody of the detenus by the respondents are illegal and that they are entitled for the defence of alibi.
As it is apparent on the face of the record that the detenus are remanded to judicial custody in Crime No. 340/2003 on the file of the Palladam
Police Station and Crime Nos. 22/01, 224/01, 6/02, 23/02, 76/00, 314/01 of the Police Stations of respondents 3, 5, 6 and 7 in HCP No. 529 of
2004 respectively, this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in granting the relief as prayed for.
That apart, the defence of alibi also cannot be gone into at this stage, in a habeas corpus petition and the Court cannot investigate the plea of
alibi in preventive detention, as held by the Apex Court in Moni Lal Roy Choudhury Vs. State of West Bengal, .
It is not for us to investigate the alibi of the detenu. The jurisprudence of preventive detention ordinarily keeps this area out of bounds and out of
the purview of this Court. Hence, finding it difficult to accede to the contention of the petitioner, the writ petitions are dismissed holding that the
petitioner has no locus standi to seek the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, they are dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to
work out his remedies in appropriate forum.