Supreme Court extends stay of High Court order against Nehru

The Supreme Court on Friday extended till November 15, the stay of a Madras High Court order seeking the former DMK Minister K.N. Nehru and two others to appear before a trial court in Tiruchirapalli in case in which it shows that they had been arrested on October 3.

A Bench of Justices comprising of Justice Altamas Kabir and JusticeS.S. Nijjar extended the stay which was granted on November 9 of the impugned order till November 15 on a request put forth by the petitioner's counsel. It again asked the Tamil Nadu government to file its responses so that the prayer for interim relief could be considered that day itself.

Besides Mr. Nehru and two others who had filed the special leave petition questioning the Madurai Bench's order of the Madras High Court are Mr. Nehru's brother, Ramajayam and M. Anbazhagan, former Deputy Mayor of Tiruchirapalli Corporation.

The petitioners submitted that the directive of the production of the accused within 24 hours of arrest was applicable even if a person was alreadyin detention or in custody and the Magistrate was within his powers to release a person if its provision was violated.

The High Court had ignored the law laid down by this court and held that there was no requirement to produce a person before the Magistrate within 24 hours as they were already in custody and therefore set aside the order and directed the appellants to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate of Trichy on November 9.

Mr. Nehru and others contended that the Special Leave Petition which was issued has raised an important question of law as to the requirement of producing an accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours, which is a mandatory provision in the Indian Constitution under Article 22 (2) and Scetion 57 of the CrPC, which is also applicable in case of persons who are arrested and already in custody in relation to some other case.

In the instant case, issue of mala fide, political revenge and malice in law and fact is also apparent on the face of record. The case of political revenge, malice in law and fact has not at all been adverted by the High Court by passing an order which cannot be sustained in th eyes of law.

Reported by

    AR