{"id":216513,"date":"2006-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006"},"modified":"2018-03-15T15:37:30","modified_gmt":"2018-03-15T10:07:30","slug":"fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"Fathima vs State: Represented By on 31 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Fathima vs State: Represented By on 31 January, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 31\/01\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR       \n\nHabeas Corpus Petition No. 1077 of 2005 \n\nFathima, aged 25 years, \nW\/o. Sheik Mohideen,  \nNo.12, Velayutham Street, \nPudupet, Chennai-600 002. .. Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\nState: represented by\nInspector of Police,\nSpecial Investigation Team,\nCBCID, Chennai. .. Respondent. \n\n\n        Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution  of\nIndia  for  issuance  of  a  Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  to produce detenu Sheik\nMohideen, son of Jamaluddin before this Court and set him at liberty.\n\n\nMr.  R.  Sankarasubbu:- For petitioner.\n\n^Mr.  Abudukumar Rajarathinam, Govt., Advocate (Crl.\nside):- For respondent.\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
(Order of Court was made by P.  Sathasivam, J.,)<\/p>\n
The petitioner, wife of one Sheik Mohideen, Accused No.8 in Sessions Case  No.
\n8  of 2003 on the file of Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, has
\nfiled this Habeas Corpus Petition for production  of  her  husband,  the  said
\nSheik Mohideen  before  this  Court  and set him at liberty.  In the affidavit
\nfiled in support of the above petition it  is  stated  that  her  husband  was
\narrested  on  18-6-1999 and is languishing in jail over 6 = years and the said
\nprolonged custody is oppressive and illegal.  The prosecution though cited 400
\nwitnesses, ultimately examined 235 witnesses only and two  more  investigation
\nofficers have  to  be examined.  The witnesses examined so far none implicated
\nthe detenu,  without  any  incriminating  material,  keeping  her  husband  in
\nprolonged custody  is  unjust  and  improper.  His bail applications were also
\ndismissed with a direction to complete the trial.  In H.C.P.No.   75  of  2005
\nthe  Division  Bench  of  this Court on 20-6-20 05 directed the prosecution to
\ncomplete the trial before July, 2005.  In spite of such orders and even  after
\npassing  of several months, the trial has not concluded resulting in prolonged
\ncustody of the detenu; hence the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the respondent  filed  a  counter
\nstating  that on 30-5-1999 during early morning, bombs were planted in as many
\nas seven places in Tamil Nadu  in  the  premises  of  the  Police  and  Prison
\nDepartments  (of  which  one  exploded)  3  places in Chennai, at one place at
\nCoimbatore and at one place at Trichy in pursuance to the  conspiracy  hatched
\nby  the  hardcore  Muslim  fundamentalists  Zahir  Hussain @ Anus (A-1) and 18
\nothers besides 5 approvers  to  retaliate  and  to  wreak  vengeance  for  the
\nperceived  illtreatment  of  Muslim prisoners kept in various prisons of Tamil
\nNadu.  It is further stated that the  petitioner’s  husband  Sheik  Moideen  @
\nSamosa  (  A-8) is a long time associate of accused Zakir Hussain @ Anus (A-1)
\nand a most trusted confidant of S.A.  Basha,  the  founder  President  of  the
\nsince banned  Al-Umma.    He facilitated accused Zakir Hussain @ Anus (A-1) in
\nselecting the site for planting of bombs at the Office of the Commissioner  of
\nPolice, Chennai.    On  29-5-1999,  he received a box bomb, Pipe Bomb, Booster
\ncharges along with pamphlets and other accessories to plant bomb at the Office
\nof the Commissioner of Police and also explosive substances  to  be  concealed
\nfor future unlawful use from Ummar Farook (A-4) and Ammani (A-6).  On 30-5-99,
\nduring  early  morning hours, he had planted a box bomb near the compound wall
\nof the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai in order to  kill  police
\npersonnel and the public and to cause damages to the properties.  He was found
\nin  possession oof explosive substances and other bomb making accessories kept
\nfor future unlawful use which were recovered in pursuant to his confession  on
\n17-6-99  by  the  Inspector  Sushil  Kumar  and  his party who was examined as
\nP.W.194 on 24-6-2005.  He is concerned in the following bomb blast cases:\n<\/p>\n
1.  F2 Egmore Police Station Crime No.1018\/99\n<\/p>\n
2.  D1 Triplicane Police Station Crime No.695\/99\n<\/p>\n
3.  F1 Chindadripet Police Station Crime No.1253\/99\n<\/p>\n
4.  B6 Cantonment Police Station Crime No.616\/99\n<\/p>\n
5.  B1 Bazaar Police Station Crime No.  1163\/99\n<\/p>\n
6.  Payangady Police Station Crime No.  137\/99\n<\/p>\n
7.  Kasargode Police Station Crime No.  4\/99.\n<\/p>\n
These cases were charged on 18-04-2001 in C.C.No.   3606\/2001  pending  before
\n14th Metropolitan  Magistrate  for committal proceedings.  Five approvers have
\nbeen examined and  committed  to  Sessions  on  23-12-2002.    The  trial  was
\ncommenced on 05-01-2004 and so far 222 witnesses were examined.\n<\/p>\n
3.  It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner Sheik Moideen @
\nSamosa  already moved this Court for bail which was dismissed on 21-9-99; vide
\nCriminal O.P.No.  17406\/99, Criminal O.  P.No.  5046\/2001  on  30-03-2001  and
\nCriminal O.P.No.   18026\/2002,  Criminal O.P.No.  24993\/2003 dated 13-08-2003,
\nCriminal O.P.No.  4425\/2004 dated 17-02-2004 and Criminal O.P.No.   16146\/2004
\ndated 20-08-2004.\n<\/p>\n
4.  It  is true that in the earlier H.C.P.  filed by Sheik Moideen, this Court
\nafter observing that since the trial will be completed by  the  end  of  July,
\n2005, dismissed  the  said  petition.   The Inspector of Police further stated
\nthat from 20-6-2005 till October, 200 5, the case is progressing at high speed
\nand 18 witnesses have been examined as shown hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
1.  24-6-2005 PW194 Sushil Kumar cross examined.\n<\/p>\n
2.  27-6-2005 PW178 Rajagopal cross examined.\n<\/p>\n
3.  29-9-2005 PW208 Santhanam, I.A.S.\n<\/p>\n
4.  13-7-2005 PW209 Asok Kumar, Inspector of Police.\n<\/p>\n
5.  14-7-2005 PW210 Chandrasekar, Inspector of Police.\n<\/p>\n
6.  19-7-2005 PW211 Raman Kutty, S.I.  of Police
\nPW212 Ramanathan, Inspector of Police  <\/p>\n
7.  22-7-2005 PW213 Kanagaraj, Inspector of Police.
\nPW214 Sultan Kabeer
\nPW215 Muthusamy\n<\/p>\n
8.  08-08-2005 PW216 Dinakaran, Inspector of Police\n<\/p>\n
9.  10-8-2005 PW217 Sivakumar, Inspector of Police\n<\/p>\n
10.  12-8-2005 & 16-8-2005 PW218 Rajendran, Inspector of
\nPolice.\n<\/p>\n
11.  17-8-2005 PW219 Chakravarthy, Inspector of Police<\/p>\n
12.  22-8-2005 & 23-8-2005 PW220 Shanmuga Rajeswaran, IPS.\n<\/p>\n
13.  23-08-2005 PW221 Paranthaman, Inspector of Police  <\/p>\n
14.  30-8-2005 PW222 Anita Praveen, IAS., <\/p>\n
15.  02-9-2005, 13-9-2005 PW221 Paranthaman, Inspector
\n37-9-3006, 05-10-2005 of Police cross examined.\n<\/p>\n
In the same affidavit it is further stated  that  only  two  more  prosecution
\nwitnesses  have to be examined for completion of prosecution case and the case
\nwas posted on 19-10-2005 for examination of one Gunasekaran, Inspector, BDDS.,
\nChennai.   After  his  examination,  the  Chief  Investigating  Officer  Thiru
\nSenthamarai Kannan, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, alone has to be examined
\nfor closing  of  the  prosecution.  The above information are available in the
\ncounter affidavit dated 19-10-2005.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The same Inspector of Police filed another  additional  counter  affidavit
\ndated  31-10-2005  wherein it is stated that the prosecution case was going to
\nbe completed on  09-11-2005  after  the  examination  of  Senthamarai  Kannan,
\nI.P.S.,  Superintendent  of  Police and the Chief Investigating Officer and if
\nthe petitioner is set at liberty at this stage, the proceedings of  the  trial
\nwill be stopped since the petitioner will abscond.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The  same  Officer  has  also  filed  another  additional affidavit dated
\n6-12-2005 wherein it is stated that the petitioner was found in possession  of
\nsome explosive  materials and explosive substances.  It is sufficient to prove
\nhis guilt as one of the coconspirator and liable for  specific  punishment  of
\nconspiracy under Section 120-B I.P.C.  The evidence of Sushil Kuamr, Inspector
\nof  Police,  cannot  be  thrown  out  since the evidence of a police should be
\nconsidered as that of a public witness unless the officer has got  a  personal
\ngrudge against  the petitioner to foist a case.  The prosecution has completed
\nthe examination of witnesses on 29-11-2005  and  out  of  380  witnesses,  the
\nprosecution  has  completed by examining 224 prosecution witnesses and no more
\nprosecution witnesses are to be examined.  The accused has  to  be  questioned
\nunder  Section  313  of  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  soon and for which the
\npresence of all the accused before the Court is mandatory.  The release of the
\nhusband of the petitioner at this crucial stage will hamper the further  trial
\nproceedings since there is every likelihood that the petitioner may abscond.\n<\/p>\n
7.  Apart  from  the  above information, Mr.  Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned
\nGovernment Advocate, has also  informed  us  that  after  examination  of  224
\nprosecution  witnesses,  the prosecution side has been closed and the case has
\nbeen posted to 13-02-2006  for  questioning  the  accused  under  Section  313
\nCr.P.C.   It  is also brought to our notice that the regular Special Judge was
\ntransferred on 15-12-2005 and thereafter  the  matter  was  adjourned  on  two
\noccasions i.e., on 02-01-20 06 and 20-01-2006 and finally posted to
\n13-02-2006 for  questioning.    In such a circumstance, he also prayed that if
\nthe detenu is set at liberty, in view of his past conduct, he will abscond and
\nthe trial cannot be proceeded with.  In  any  event,  according  to  him,  the
\npresent  Habeas  Corpus  Petition  is  not the proper remedy and if at all the
\ndetenu has any grievance, he can move the appropriate Court for bail.\n<\/p>\n
8.  This is not an ordinary case like other cases.  There is  no  doubt  about
\nit.   In  this  case,  the  prosecution  examined as many as 224 witnesses and
\nclosed its side.  As said earlier, the case has been posted to 13-02-2006  for
\nquestioning under  Section 313 Cr.P.C.  We are also conscious of the fact that
\nin our earlier order in H.C.P.No.  1223\/2004 and 75\/2005 we observed that  the
\ntrial will  reach its finality by the end of July, 2005.  However, considering
\nthe examination of large number of witnesses, both chief and cross in  respect
\nof  each  witness, the Court had taken time till November, 2005 for completion
\nof examination of the prosecution witnesses.  It is also not in  dispute  that
\nthe  Special  Judge who was holding the post was transferred on 15-12-2005 and
\nThiru Avadi Thiyagaraja Moorthy, another Special  Judge,  Poonamallee  is  now
\nin-charge of  the  said Court.  In such a circumstance, it cannot be concluded
\nthat the prosecution either disobeyed or violated the order of this Court.  It
\ndepends upon the facts of each case and number of persons to  be  examined  on
\neither side.    There  is  no  dispute with regard to the proposition that the
\naccused are entitled speedy trial and if there is inaction on the part of  the
\nprosecution, they  are  entitled  to be released.  However, the said principle
\ncannot be applied mechanically to all cases.  We do not want to  go  into  the
\nmerits of  the  charges levelled against the husband of the petitioner.  Based
\non the materials it is for the Special Court to decide one way or other.    In
\nview  of  the peculiar factual position and large number of witnesses examined
\non the prosecution side, we are of the view that the following cases cited  by
\nMr.  R.   Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner, are not helpful to
\nthe case on hand:\n<\/p>\n
(i) STATE OF U.P v.  CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHUKLA
\n(2001 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 400) <\/p>\n
(ii) A.R.  ANTULAY ETC.  v.  R.S.  NAYAK<\/a>
\n(1992 (1) Crimes Supreme Court 193) <\/p>\n
(iii) S.C.  LEGAL AID COMMITTEE REPRESENTING UNDERTRIAL
\nPRISONERS v.  UNION OF INDIA<\/a>
\n(1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 39) <\/p>\n
(iv) SHAHEEN WELFARE ASSN.  v.  UNION OF INDIA<\/a>
\n(1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 366) <\/p>\n
(v) HUSSAINARA KHATOON (I) v.  HOME SECRETARY<\/a>
\n(1980 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 23) <\/p>\n
(vi) KADRA PEHADIYA v.  STATE OF BIHAR<\/a>
\n(1981 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 791) <\/p>\n
(vii) THYAGU @ THIYAGARAJAN v.  INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
\nBARAGUR (W.P.No.5380\/90 dated 23-8-1990-D.B)     <\/p>\n
(viii) JAINULLAH v.  STATE BY DY.S.P, CBI, CHENNAI
\n(HCP No.  595\/2002 dated 19-2-2003-DB)  <\/p>\n
(ix) NALLARASAN v.  DY.S.P, Q BRANCH CID, CUDDALORE
\n(HCP No.<\/a>  443 of 2003 etc., dated 24-4-2003-DB)<\/p>\n
(x) F.M.  AHMED GNANIAR v.  STATE BY DY.S.P., CBI,CHENNAI
\n(HCP No.  1487\/2003 dated 18-12-2003-DB)  <\/p>\n
(xi) RAVICHANDRAN v.  STATE REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
\nSPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM CBCID, CHENNAI
\n(HCP Nos.<\/a>  1223\/2004 and 75\/2005 Dt:20-6-2005-DB)   <\/p>\n
(xii) SHIEK MOHAMED UMAR SHA @ RAJU v.  STATE
\n(Crl.O.P.Nos.25088 and 25089\/2003 dt.  1-8-2003)<\/p>\n
(xiii) ZULFIGAR ALI @ APPAKUTTY v.  STATE
\n(Crl.O.P.No.580\/2004 Dt:  8-1-2004)<\/p>\n
9.  It is useful to refer a Constitutional Bench decision of the Supreme Court
\nin P.  Ramachandra Rao v.  State of Karnataka,<\/a> reported in 2002 Supreme  Court
\nCases (Cri)  830.  After referring to all the earlier case laws, including the
\nSupreme Court decisions cited by Mr.  R.  Sankarasubbu, Their  Lordships  have
\nconcluded thus:  (para 29 )<\/p>\n
“29.   For  all  the  foregoing  reasons, we are of the opinion that in Common
\nCause case (I) (1996) 4 SCC 33 [as modified in Common Cause (II) (1996) 6  SCC
\n775]  and  Raj  Deo  Sharma (I) [1998] 7 SCC 507 and (II) [1999] 7 SCC 604 the
\nCourt could not have prescribed periods of limitation beyond which  the  trial
\nof  a  criminal  case  or  a  criminal  proceeding  cannot  continue  and must
\nmandatorily be closed followed by  an  order  acquitting  or  discharging  the
\naccused.  In conclusion we hold:\n<\/p>\n
(1) The  dictum  in  A.R.  Antulay case [(1992)1 SCC 225] is correct and still
\nholds the field.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The  propositions  emerging  from  Article  21  of  the  Constitution  and
\nexpounding the  right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in A.R.  Antulay
\ncase adequately take care of right to speedy trial.  We  uphold  and  reaffirm
\nthe said propositions.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The guidelines laid down in A.R.  Antulay case are not exhaustive but only
\nillustrative.   They  are not intended to operate as hard-and-fast rules or to
\nbe applied like a straitjacket formula.  Their applicability would  depend  on
\nthe fact  situation  of  each case.  It is difficult to foresee all situations
\nand no generalization can be made.\n<\/p>\n
(4) It is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to  draw
\nor prescribe  an  outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings.  The
\ntime-limits or bars of limitation prescribed in the several directions made in
\nCommon Cause (I), Raj Deo Sharma (I) and Raj Deo Sharma (II)  could  not  have
\nbeen so prescribed or drawn and are not good law.  The criminal courts are not
\nobliged  to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse
\nof time, as prescribed by the directions made in Common Cause  case  (I),  Raj
\nDeo Sharma  case  (I) and (II).  At the most the periods of time prescribed in
\nthose decisions can be taken by the courts seized of the trial or  proceedings
\nto act as reminders when they may be persuaded to apply their judicial mind to
\nthe  facts  and  circumstances of the case before them and determine by taking
\ninto consideration the  several  relevant  factors  as  pointed  out  in  A.R.
\nAntulay case (1992) 1 SCC 225 and decide whether the trial or proceedings have
\nbecome  so  inordinately  delayed  as to be called oppressive and unwarranted.
\nSuch timelimits cannot and will not by themselves be treated by any court as a
\nbar to further continuance of the trial  or  proceedings  and  as  mandatorily
\nobliging the court to terminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  The criminal courts should exercise their available powers, such as those
\nunder Sections 309,  311  and  258  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  to
\neffectuate the right to speedy trial.  A watchful and diligent trial Judge can
\nprove to  be  a  better  protector  of  such  right  than  any guidelines.  In
\nappropriate cases, jurisdiction of the High Court under  Section  482  Cr.P.C.
\nand  Articles  226  and  227  of  the  Constitution  can  be  invoked  seeking
\nappropriate relief or suitable directions.\n<\/p>\n
(6) This is an appropriate occasion to remind the Union of India and the State
\nGovernments   of   their   constitutional   obligation   to   strengthen   the
\njudiciaryquantitatively   and  qualitativelyby  providing  requisite  funds,
\nmanpower and infrastructure.  We hope and trust  that  the  Governments  shall
\nact.\n<\/p>\n
We  answer the questions posed in the orders of reference dated 19-9-2 000 and
\n26-4-2001 in the above said terms.”\n<\/p>\n
It is clear from the principles laid down in the above decision that it is not
\npermissible  to  prescribe  any  outer-limit  for   conclusion   of   criminal
\nproceedings.   We have already demonstrated the number of persons involved and
\nexamined on the side of the prosecution case and it cannot  be  compared  with
\nother  ordinary cases where only few witnesses are examined on the side of the
\nprosecution.  In the light of the principles laid down in the above  case  and
\nof  the  fact  that  the  prosecution has already completed the examination of
\ntheir witnesses and posted for questioning, we are not inclined to accept  the
\nrequest of the petitioner in this petition.  However, it is made clear that if
\nthe  trial  is  further delayed due to the inaction or attitude on the part of
\nthe prosecution, the person aggrieved can move the appropriate Court for bail.
\nWith the above observation, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:- Yes
\nInternet:- Yes.\n<\/p>\n
R.B.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Inspector of Police, Special Investigation Team,
\nCBCID., Chennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Fathima vs State: Represented By on 31 January, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 31\/01\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1077 of 2005 Fathima, aged 25 years, W\/o. Sheik Mohideen, No.12, Velayutham Street, Pudupet, […]<\/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-216513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFathima vs State: Represented By on 31 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fathima vs State: Represented By on 31 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-15T10:07:30+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Fathima vs State: Represented By on 31 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-15T10:07:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2614,\"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\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006\",\"name\":\"Fathima vs State: Represented By on 31 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-15T10:07:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Fathima vs State: Represented By on 31 January, 2006\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Fathima vs State: Represented By on 31 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fathima vs State: Represented By on 31 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-15T10:07:30+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Fathima vs State: Represented By on 31 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-15T10:07:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006"},"wordCount":2614,"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\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006","name":"Fathima vs State: Represented By on 31 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-15T10:07:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fathima-vs-state-represented-by-on-31-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Fathima vs State: Represented By on 31 January, 2006"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/216513","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=216513"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216513\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}