{"id":112365,"date":"2003-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003"},"modified":"2016-03-27T15:23:13","modified_gmt":"2016-03-27T09:53:13","slug":"k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003","title":{"rendered":"K. Jayaraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K. Jayaraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 24\/09\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM\n\nH.C.P. No. 2531 of 2002\n\nK. Jayaraman,\n1\/62, Jawahar Nagar,\nSalem City and District.                                ...  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Commissioner of Police,\n   Salem City,\n   Salem District.\n\n2. The Secretary to Govt.\n     of Tamil Nadu,\n   Prohibition &amp; Excise Dept.\n   Fort St. George,\n   Madras  600 009.                            ...  Respondents\n\n        Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India  praying  for\nissuance  of  a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the\ndetenu namely Vakkil Kandasamy @ Kandasamy before this Hon' ble Court  who  is\ndetained  as  per  the  order  of  detention passed by the first respondent in\nC.M.P.  No:  40\/Goondas\/2002 dated 17.11.2002 and confined at Central  Prison,\nSalem and set him at liberty and further direction to call for the records and\nset aside the same.\n\n!For petitioner :  Mr.K.  Manivasakam\n\n^For respondents :  Mr.A.  Navaneethakrishnan\n                Addl.  Public Prosecutor.\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was<br \/>\nmade by V.S.  SIRPURKAR, J.)<\/p>\n<p>        The  order  dated  17.11.2002  passed  by  the Commissioner of Police,<br \/>\nSalem, dubbing one Vakkil Kandasamy  @  Kandasamy  S\/o.    Kulandaivelu  as  a<br \/>\n&#8220;Goonda&#8221;  and  directing  his  detention  under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nPrevention of Dangerous Activities  of  bootleggers,  Drug  Offenders,  Forest<br \/>\nOffenders,  Goondas,  Immoral  Traffic  Offenders  and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982<br \/>\n(Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) is challenged in this petition.  The  said  person<br \/>\nis  suggested to have been involved in a criminal case and also in an incident<br \/>\ndated 7.10.2002 involving murder of one Kumar, which took place  in  Shanmugha<br \/>\nNagar at about 10&#8217;o clock at night at 6.10.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The  fact  suggests  that,  on  that  date, one Manickam came and<br \/>\nreported before the police  that  he  had  three  sons  Kumar,  Rajendran  and<br \/>\nThangaraj and  his daughter Alamelu was married to one Boopathi.  However, the<br \/>\nsaid Alamelu came back leaving her husband and started staying with one Kannan<br \/>\nS\/o.  Raju and from  that  time  the  relationship  between  the  families  of<br \/>\nManickam and  Kannan  became  strained.  It was pointed out that on account of<br \/>\nhis sister&#8217;s behaviour and on account of Kannan staying with his sister, Kumar<br \/>\nwas irritated and he requested Kannan to send back his sister Alamelu  and  on<br \/>\nthat  count  enmity  between  Kumar  and Kannan prevailed and there used to be<br \/>\npetty quarrels.  Kumar was also given some threats by  one  Vakkil  Kandasamy,<br \/>\nthe detenu  herein  and Durai, who were the supporters of Kannan.  The grounds<br \/>\nfurther suggests that Kumar was also beaten up by  Vakkil  Kandasamy,  detenu,<br \/>\nand Durai and there was a compromise effected between them by panchayatdars.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   On the fateful day, when Kumar went for his salary to his master,<br \/>\nhe did not return till 10.00 p.m.  and it turned out that he had been seen  in<br \/>\nthe company of Vakkil Kandasamy, Durai and Kannan.  When he was not found even<br \/>\nafter  enquiring with these persons, the body of Kumar was found on the vacant<br \/>\nland on the backside of E.B.  Office close to a footpath.  It was stated  that<br \/>\non  this  count,  on  seeing  the  murder,  public  alarm  was  caused and the<br \/>\ntranquility was disturbed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The detaining authority has also taken into consideration the fact<br \/>\nthat all these persons viz.  Vakkil Kandasamy, the detenu, Kannan  and  Durai,<br \/>\nwere rowdies  having  been  involved in offences earlier.  A further reference<br \/>\nhas been made to the investigation into the murder of Kumar and the fact  that<br \/>\nKumar  was  murdered  at  about  10&#8217;o clock at night by five persons including<br \/>\nVakkil Kandasamy, the detenu.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  The learned counsel for  the  petitioner  Mr.K.Manivasakam  argues<br \/>\nthat  there was no disturbance to the public order and the ground case, at the<br \/>\nmost, can be described  only  to  be  a  disturbance  to  the  law  and  order<br \/>\nsituation.   He points out that the murder took place at night and, therefore,<br \/>\nthere was no question of the said murder being seen by anybody and,  for  that<br \/>\nmatter, there being any alarm on account of the murder.  He, therefore, relied<br \/>\non the judgments  of  the Supreme Court reported in J.T.  2003 (1) S.C.C.  176<br \/>\n(Darpan Kumar Sharma @ <a href=\"\/doc\/1753534\/\">Dharban Kumar Sharma vs.    State  of  Tamil  Nadu  and<br \/>\nothers<\/a>) and A.I.R.   1988  SC  1013  <a href=\"\/doc\/1580583\/\">(Smt.    Tarannum vs.  Union of India and<br \/>\nothers<\/a>).  He also relied on the judgment reported in 1991 Law Weekly  Criminal<br \/>\n463 (S.  Subash Babu and another vs.  State of Tamil Nadu and another) as also<br \/>\non an unreported  judgment  of  this  Court  made in H.C.P.  No:  1274 of 1998<br \/>\ndecided on 17.3.1999 by N.DHINAKAR and V.  BAKTHAVATSALU, JJ.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  As against this, the learned Additional Public  Prosecutor  points<br \/>\nout  that  these persons and more particularly the detenu was a known rowdy in<br \/>\nthe locality and he was involved in number of incidents earlier also; this was<br \/>\na small area where all these persons were dreaded and therefore, obviously the<br \/>\nmurder which was committed at about 10&#8217;o clock  at  night  was  not  a  secret<br \/>\naffair.   According  to  the  learned  Additional  Public Prosecutor, the said<br \/>\nmurder took place at a public place near a foot path and there was material on<br \/>\nrecord, in the shape of the statements of several witnesses under Section  161<br \/>\nof  Cr.P.C.,  to  suggests  that  on  account of this murder, an atmosphere of<br \/>\nterror prevailed in the whole area and the whole  area  became  tensed  for  a<br \/>\nconsiderable span of time.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   We  will  have to, therefore, see as to whether this incident was<br \/>\nsufficient and whether there was any material before the concerned authorities<br \/>\nto come to the conclusion that the incident had caused prejudice to the public<br \/>\norder prevailing in the locality.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  It must be at once seen  that  the  murder  was  done  in  a  very<br \/>\ngruesome  manner  which is clear from the whole prosecution case stated in the<br \/>\ngrounds.  The place was a public place and near a foot path in a busy locality<br \/>\nwhere there would be some activity, this being an urban area of Salem, a  city<br \/>\nwhich is thickly populated and for which a Corporation is established.  It is,<br \/>\ntherefore,  not  unlikely  that  there  was  an  alarm  in  the whole locality<br \/>\nparticularly, because of this dare devil act of murder  on  the  part  of  the<br \/>\naccused persons,  one  of  whom  was the detenu.  We are, therefore, convinced<br \/>\nthat the detaining authority had  every  reason  to  hold  that  there  was  a<br \/>\ndisturbance to the public order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  In A.I.R.  1998 S.C.  1013 <a href=\"\/doc\/1580583\/\">(Smt.  Tarannum vs.  Union of India and<br \/>\nothers<\/a>),  to  which  we  have  already  made a reference, the Supreme Court in<br \/>\nparagraph 6, has given certain examples of the situation which could  have  an<br \/>\neffect on  the  public  order.    Amongst  them, the Supreme Court suggests, a<br \/>\nrepetition of the criminal act by a dare-devil, open shoot out, throwing  bomb<br \/>\nat  public  places,  committing  serious  offences  in public transport, armed<br \/>\npersons going on plundering public properties or terrorising people may create<br \/>\na sense of insecurity in the public mind and may have  an  impact  on  &#8216;public<br \/>\norder&#8217;.  The Supreme Court has further observed that,<br \/>\n&#8220;Even  certain  murder committed by persons in lonely places with the definite<br \/>\nobject of promoting the cause of the party  to  which  they  belong  may  also<br \/>\naffect the maintenance of &#8216;public order&#8217;.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In the  case  on  hand, there is no question of any party being involved.  But<br \/>\nthe fact remains that there was enmity between Kumar on the one side  and  the<br \/>\ndetenu and his friends on the other side.  The detenu enjoys a reputation as a<br \/>\nrowdy which is clear from the fact that he was involved in as many as three or<br \/>\nfour serious criminal cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   We, therefore, are of the opinion that even if this detention is<br \/>\non account of the incident dated 6.10.2002, there was every material available<br \/>\nto  the  detaining  authority  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  was<br \/>\ndisturbance to the public order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.   The  learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to<br \/>\nthe decision reported in JT 2003 S.C.  176.  That was a case of looting  at  a<br \/>\npoint of knife.  In that case, the Supreme Court observed that,<br \/>\n&#8221;  Any  disorderly  behaviour  of  a  person  in the public or commission of a<br \/>\ncriminal offence is bound, to some extent, affect the peace prevailing in  the<br \/>\nlocality  and  it  may  also affect law and order but the same need not affect<br \/>\nmaintenance of public order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The only case, robbery of Rs.1,000\/- at the point of knife, was not held to be<br \/>\na sufficient ground to affect the public order.  The  Supreme  Court  held  in<br \/>\nthat  case  that  the detenu therein was involved in three cases under Section<br \/>\n379 which were not relating to the public order and there was only a  solitary<br \/>\nincident  where the detenu was said to have robbed a person in a public place.<br \/>\nIn our opinion, the facts in the case in hand are entirely different.  In this<br \/>\nmatter, the detenu was said to have  been  involved  in  the  cases  involving<br \/>\noffences  under  Sections  341, 307, 506 (ii) and was also charged of being in<br \/>\nunlawful assembly, being the member of the unlawful assembly and  being  armed<br \/>\nin that  assembly.    Thus, he was charged with offences under Section 148 and<br \/>\n324 read with Section 506 of I.P.C.  He was also involved  in  offences  under<br \/>\nSection 387  i.e.    robbery  and  ultimately  the offence of murder which was<br \/>\ncommitted on the public place.  In that view, the  case  on  hand  has  to  be<br \/>\ndistinguished on the facts.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  In the unreported judgment in H.C.P.  No:  1274 of 1998, the case<br \/>\nturned on  an  entirely different issue.  There, the Court gave a finding that<br \/>\nthere was not enough material to suggest that there  was  disturbance  to  the<br \/>\npublic order.    There  was  a statement given by one witness Mehrunnisa under<br \/>\nSection 161 of Cr.P.C.  and beyond that, there was no material  to  hold  that<br \/>\ntensed situation prevailed in the locality.  That is not the case here.  Here,<br \/>\nthere  are  number  of statements available which suggests that because of the<br \/>\nmurder in the public place, the normal tempo of the public life was disturbed.<br \/>\nIn that view, we would be slow to hold that there was no  disturbance  to  the<br \/>\npublic order.   In  so  far  as  the  law  laid down by this Court in 1991 Law<br \/>\nWeekly Criminal 463 (S.  Subash Babu and another vs.  State of Tamil Nadu  and<br \/>\nanother)  is  concerned,  that is also a decision about difference between law<br \/>\nand order and public order and that was also  a  case  where  the  detenu  was<br \/>\ninvolved in looting in the public place.  As we have already pointed out there<br \/>\nis  a  subsequent  judgment  by  the  Supreme  Court  to  which we have made a<br \/>\nreference.  We would choose to go by the subsequent pronouncement.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  In that view, there was  enough  material  before  the  detaining<br \/>\nauthority  to  come  to  the conclusion that the activities of the detenu were<br \/>\nsufficient to  cause  prejudice  to  the  public  order  and,  therefore,  the<br \/>\ndetaining authority  was  justified  in  ordering  his  detention.    The writ<br \/>\npetition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nWebsite: Yes<\/p>\n<p>gp<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Commissioner of Police,<br \/>\nSalem City,<br \/>\nSalem District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Secretary to Govt.\n<\/p>\n<p>of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\nProhibition &amp; Excise Dept.<br \/>\nFort St.  George,<br \/>\nMadras &#8211; 9.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K. Jayaraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2003 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 24\/09\/2003 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM H.C.P. No. 2531 of 2002 K. Jayaraman, 1\/62, Jawahar Nagar, Salem City and District. &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K. Jayaraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Jayaraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-27T09:53:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Jayaraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-27T09:53:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1714,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003\",\"name\":\"K. Jayaraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-27T09:53:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Jayaraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K. Jayaraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Jayaraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-27T09:53:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Jayaraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2003","datePublished":"2003-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-27T09:53:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003"},"wordCount":1714,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003","name":"K. Jayaraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-27T09:53:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-24-september-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Jayaraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112365","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=112365"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112365\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}