{"id":116806,"date":"2009-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-17T01:08:44","modified_gmt":"2017-02-16T19:38:44","slug":"thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Thangam vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Thangam vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 06\/04\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.MALA\n\nHabeas Corpus Petition (MD) No.671 of 2008\n\nThangam\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The State represented by\n The District Collector and\n District Magistrate,\n Tirunelveli,\n Tirunelveli District.\n\n2. The Secretary,\n Government of Tamil Nadu,\n Prohibition and Excise Department,\n Fort Saint George,\n Chennai-9.\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\n\t \tPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for\nissuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records from the first\nrespondent in M.H.S.Confdl.No.118\/2008 dated 31.07.2008 setting aside the said\norder of detention passed by the first respondent and setting the detenue, the\npetitioner's husband Mariappan at liberty now detained in Central Prison,\nPalayamkottai.\n\n!For Petitioner \t\t... Mr.V.Kathirvelu\n^For Respondents\t\t... Mr.Daniel Manohar\n\t\t\t\t    Addl.Public Prosecutor.\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t   (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J)<\/p>\n<p>\tIn this writ application challenge is made to an order of the first<br \/>\nrespondent made in M.H.S.Confdl.No.118\/2008 dated 31.07.2008, whereby Mariappan,<br \/>\nthe husband of the petitioner, was ordered to be detained under the provisions<br \/>\nof the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug<br \/>\noffenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand offenders,<br \/>\nSlum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982)<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred as the Act) terming him as a &#8216;Goonda&#8217; as defined under the<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also looked<br \/>\ninto all the material in particular the order under challenge and also the<br \/>\ncounter filed by the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. It is not in controversy, pursuant to the recommendations made by the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in Cr.No.708\/2008 for the<br \/>\noffence under Sections 353, 307, 379 IPC and 132 read with 177 Motor Vehicle<br \/>\nAct; in Cr.No.714\/2008 for the offence under Section 379 IPC; in Cr.No.722\/2008<br \/>\nfor the offence under Section 379 IPC; in Cr.No.723\/2008 for the offence under<br \/>\nSection 379 IPC, all the four adverse cases are registered on the file of<br \/>\nTenkasi Police Station and apart from this he was also involved in<br \/>\nCr.No.311\/2008 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC<br \/>\non the file the Courtallam Police Station which was shown as ground case, the<br \/>\ndetaining authority looked into all the materials available and made the order<br \/>\nof detention after recording his subjective satisfaction that the activities of<br \/>\nthe detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and<br \/>\ncircumstances would warrant for detaining him under the Act and thus, the<br \/>\nauthority has made the order under challenge, which is the subject matter of<br \/>\nchallenge before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Advancing the arguments, on behalf of the petitioner, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner would submit that in so far as the first adverse case<br \/>\nand ground case are concerned, no bail application was filed and equally in the<br \/>\nsecond, third and fourth adverse cases bail applications were pending. Under<br \/>\nsuch circumstances, it cannot be stated that there was any real possibility of<br \/>\nthe detenu coming out on bail. But, the detaining authority has observed that<br \/>\nthere was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and the same was<br \/>\nwithout any basis whatsoever. Added further, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner would submit that a perusal of the order would indicate that the<br \/>\ndetenu was arrested in the ground case registered in Cr.No.311\/2008 on the file<br \/>\nof Courtallam Police Station on 29.07.2008, but no material is available to<br \/>\naccept the same. Added further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would<br \/>\nsubmit that in so far as the four adverse cases are concerned, the detenu was<br \/>\narrested on 22.07.2008. In so far as the ground case is concerned, the detenu<br \/>\nwas not actually arrested, but a P.T. Warrant was issued on 30.07.2008 for his<br \/>\nproduction in that case on 05.08.2008. It is pertinent to point out that the<br \/>\norder of detention came to be passed on 31.07.2008 itself and thus, the date of<br \/>\narrest of the detenu in Cr.No.311\/2008 on the file of Courtallam Police Station<br \/>\non 29.07.2008 was only imaginary and that would also clearly indicate the non<br \/>\napplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Hence, the order has<br \/>\ngot to be set aside. Added further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would<br \/>\nsubmit that there was an inordinate delay in consideration of the representation<br \/>\nmade by the detenu to the authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the<br \/>\nsubmissions made and paid its anxious consideration. After doing so, the Court<br \/>\nhas to necessarily set aside the order on the following grounds;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFirstly, it is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in four<br \/>\nadverse cases and one ground case in Cr.No.311\/2008 on the file of Courtallam<br \/>\nPolice Station referred to above. In so far as the observations made by the<br \/>\nauthority in the course of his order that there was a real possibility of the<br \/>\ndetenu coming out on bail is concerned, it was actually observed without any<br \/>\nmaterial or any basis at all for the reasons, as rightly pointed out by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner that in so far as the first adverse case and<br \/>\nground case are concerned no bail application was pending and in so far as the<br \/>\nsecond, third and the fourth adverse cases are concerned, bail applications were<br \/>\nactually pending for orders, and thus, the observations made by the authority<br \/>\nthat there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is without<br \/>\nany basis whatsoever. It was simply an impression that was passing in the minds<br \/>\nof the detaining authority. Thus, it is quite indicative of the fact that the<br \/>\nobservation is nothing but prejudging of the situation that an order to be<br \/>\npassed in the bail application made in the Court of Law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSecondly, the Court is unable to notice any material to indicate that the<br \/>\ndetenu was arrested on 29.07.2008 in the ground case. Contrarily, it was shown<br \/>\nthat the detenu was arrested on 22.07.2008 in the adverse cases. P.T. Warrant<br \/>\nwas issued only on 30.07.2008, as it could be seen from the page 157 of the<br \/>\nbook, for his production before the Court on 05.08.2008. It would be clear<br \/>\nindicative of the fact that there was no arrest was made on 29.07.2008 in the<br \/>\nground case as found in the detention order. Further the order under challenge<br \/>\ncame to be passed on 31.07.2008. There was a direction for the production of the<br \/>\ndetenu on 05.08.2008 under P.T. warrant and the same was also passed on<br \/>\n30.07.2008. All would clearly indicate the date of arrest in the ground case as<br \/>\nif 29.07.2008 cannot be true, but imaginary which would indicate the non<br \/>\napplication of mind on the part of the authority. Added circumstances, there was<br \/>\ndelay in consideration of the representation. The representation was received on<br \/>\n17.09.2008 and the remarks were called for on 22.09.2008 and the remarks were<br \/>\nreceived on 29.09.2008. But, the file is submitted only on 10.10.2008. Thus,<br \/>\nthere was a delay of 11 days out of which, 5 days are shown to be holidays and<br \/>\nthe State has no explanation for the remaining 6 days delay which has caused<br \/>\nprejudice to the interest of the detenu. Hence the order has got to be set<br \/>\naside. Hence, this Court has made undone by upsetting the order under challenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention<br \/>\norder in M.H.S.Confdl.No.118\/2008 dated 31.07.2008 passed by the first<br \/>\nrespondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith<br \/>\nunless his presence, in accordance with law, is required in connection with any<br \/>\nother case.\n<\/p>\n<p>jikr\/sj<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The State represented by<br \/>\n The District Collector and<br \/>\n District Magistrate,<br \/>\n Tirunelveli,<br \/>\n Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The Secretary,<br \/>\n Government of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\n Prohibition and Excise Department,<br \/>\n Fort Saint George,<br \/>\n Chennai-9<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Thangam vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06\/04\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.MALA Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No.671 of 2008 Thangam .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State represented by The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, [&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-116806","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>Thangam vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2009 - 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\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thangam vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-16T19:38:44+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thangam vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-16T19:38:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1171,\"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\\\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Thangam vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-16T19:38:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thangam vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Thangam vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2009 - 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\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thangam vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-16T19:38:44+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thangam vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-16T19:38:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009"},"wordCount":1171,"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\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009","name":"Thangam vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-16T19:38:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangam-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thangam vs The State Represented By on 6 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/116806","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=116806"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116806\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116806"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}