High CourtsDivision Bench(1987) 11 MAD CK 0042

Munisamy vs The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem

Madras High Court · Decided on 18 November 1987 · Citation: (1988) LW(Cri) 189

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.A. Kader, J · Bellie, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 1169 of 1987

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 362 words

S.A. Kader, J.—This is a writ petition filed by one Munisamy for releasing his friend Subramani, who has been detained at the Central Jail, Salem as an approver in S.C. No. 163 of 1985.

2.

The said Subramani was arrested on 19th January, 1984 and has been tendered pardon and taken as an approver. Under S. 306(4)(b), Crl. P.C., 1973, he has been detained in custody till the termination of the trial. In the Court of Session, he has been examined in part as P.W. 1 on 12th December, 1985 and 20th December, 1985. Thereafter, his examination could not go on, as accused 2 and 4 absconded and made themselves scarce. These two accused have not been secured for a long time and hence the trial could not go on. It is represented by the learned Public Prosecutor that the fourth accused has now been secured very recently and that the second accused has yet to be secured. The result is the approver is in detention for more than three years. His application for bail has been rejected by the Court below. After waiting for three long tedious years, this writ petition has been filed by his friend to secure his release.

3.

No doubt, under S. 306(4)(b) , Crl. P.C., 1973, the approver shall be detained in custody until termination of the trial, unless he is already on bail. But that does not mean that he can be kept in detention without any limit on the ground that some of the accused are absconding and the trial could not go on. That would amount to grave injustice to a citizen and deprivation of life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The extra-ordinary circumstances of the case call for our interference and we think that this is a fit case for releasing the approver on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor has no objection thereto.

4.

In the result, the approver Subramani is released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 2,000 with two sureties each for a like sum each to the satisfaction to the Sessions Judge, Salem. W.P. ordered accordingly.