{"id":35596,"date":"2009-04-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-07T19:15:11","modified_gmt":"2016-11-07T13:45:11","slug":"muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 April, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 18\/04\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.MALA\n\nHCP (MD) Nos.42 to 44 of 2009\n\nMuthukumar\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   HCP 42\/2009\n\nMayandi @ Thatha\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   HCP 43\/2009\n\nArumuganainar\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   HCP 44\/2009\n\nvs\n\n1.The State of Tamil Nadu\n  represented by its Secretary\n  to Government, Prohibition\n  and Excise Department\n  Secretariat, Fort St. George\n  Chennai 600 009.\n2.The District Collector\n  Thirunelveli District\n  Thirunelveli\n3.The Superintendent of Police\n  Thirunelveli District\n  Thirunelveli\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents in<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t   all petitions<\/p>\n<p>\tHCP No.42\/2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\npraying for a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records of the detention<br \/>\norder made in M.H.S.Confdl.No.138\/2008 dated 8.11.2008 passed by the second<br \/>\nrespondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce<br \/>\nthe detenu Muthukumar now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai as Detenu in<br \/>\nTPDA No.3253 before this Court and set the detenu Muthukumar at liberty.<br \/>\n\tHCP No.43\/2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\npraying for a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records of the detention<br \/>\norder made in M.H.S.Confdl.No.137\/2008 dated 8.11.2008 passed by the second<br \/>\nrespondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce<br \/>\nthe detenu Mayandi alias Thatha now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai as<br \/>\nDetenu in TPDA No.3252 before this Court and set the detenu Mayandi alias Thatha<br \/>\nat liberty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHCP No.44\/2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\npraying for a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records of the detention<br \/>\norder made in M.H.S.Confdl.No.139\/2008 dated 8.11.2008 passed by the second<br \/>\nrespondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce<br \/>\nthe detenu Arumuganainar now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai as Detenu<br \/>\nin TPDA No.3254 before this Court and set the detenu Arumuganainar at liberty.\n<\/p>\n<p>!For Petitioners&#8230; Mr.R.Jayaraman<br \/>\n^For Respondents&#8230; Mr.M.Daniel Manohar<br \/>\n\t\t    Additional Public<br \/>\n\t\t\tProsecutor<\/p>\n<p>:COMMON ORDER<br \/>\n(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<br \/>\n\tIn all these petitions, challenge is made to the respective orders of<br \/>\ndetention made by the second respondent dated 8.11.2008, terming the detenus as<br \/>\nGoonda.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.In all these cases, the detenus are the petitioners. The orders are<br \/>\nchallenged on the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) The confessional statement in the ground case was recorded as if it<br \/>\nwas done by one of the petitioners namely Arumuganainar, who are all shown as<br \/>\naccused in the ground case.  The confessional statement of Arumuganainar was<br \/>\nrecorded, and the same if perused, would indicate that in first part, it is<br \/>\nstated that it was Arumuganainar while in the other pages it is stated that it<br \/>\nwas by a different accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) Equally, there was a recovery of vehicle bearing registration No.TN 69<br \/>\nA 8270, a motorcycle, which was alleged to have been recovered from<br \/>\nArumuganainar; but, the athatchi would reveal that it was recovered from one<br \/>\nMuthukumar, the petitioner in HCP 42\/2009.  Thus these discrepancies were<br \/>\nnoticed.  If to be so, a clarification should have been called for by the<br \/>\ndetaining authority, but failed to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) As far as bail applications were concerned, there were two adverse<br \/>\ncases and one ground case out of which the bail application was filed in the<br \/>\nfirst adverse case on 24.10.2008 and dismissed on 5.11.2008.  As far as the<br \/>\nsecond adverse case and ground case are concerned, no bail application was filed<br \/>\neither, or pending before the Court of criminal law.  When the order came to be<br \/>\npassed on 8.11.2008, the authority has observed as if there was a real<br \/>\npossibility of the detenu coming out on bail, and it was actually not supported<br \/>\nby any material.  Thus it was only an apprehension and without any reason.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d) As regards the other accused one Minor Murugan, he was shown to be the<br \/>\nperson who has actually supplied weapons and country bombs, etc. But he was out<br \/>\nof India from 11.10.2008 and 30.10.2008.  The occurrence has taken place between<br \/>\nthese period, and he has also moved for anticipatory bail before the Apex Court,<br \/>\nand the police was directed not to arrest him.  All would go to show that it was<br \/>\nactually a cooked up case for the purpose of detaining them, and under the<br \/>\ncircumstances, they have got to be released by setting aside the orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the<br \/>\nabove contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by<br \/>\nthe sponsoring authority that the petitioners herein were involved in two<br \/>\nadverse cases namely (1) Seevalaperi PS Cr.No.85\/2008 under Sec.302 IPC; and (2)<br \/>\nAyikudi PS Cr.No.135\/2008 under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC, and one ground case<br \/>\nin Thevarkulam PS Cr.No.73\/2008 under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC and Sec.5 of<br \/>\nthe Explosive Substances Act, on scrutiny of the materials, the second<br \/>\nrespondent had passed the order of detention on 8.11.2008 recording its<br \/>\nsubjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioners were prejudicial<br \/>\nto the maintenance of public order.  As rightly pointed out by the learned<br \/>\nCounsel for the petitioners, a scrutiny of the materials would clearly indicate<br \/>\nthe following infirmities.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.Perusal of the materials would clearly indicate that there was a<br \/>\nconfessional statement of Arumuganainar.  The first part of the confession would<br \/>\nindicate as if it was recorded from Arumuganainar.  When the other pages are<br \/>\nlooked into, it would indicate as if it was done by other accused.  Thus, a<br \/>\ndiscrepancy is noticed whether it is from Arumuganainar or from the other<br \/>\naccused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.Apart from the above, a recovery has actually been made as per the<br \/>\nathatchi from one Muthukumar who is the co-accused in the case.  But a perusal<br \/>\nof the materials would clearly indicate that though it was recovered from<br \/>\nMuthukumar, in the confession of Arumuganainar it is shown as if it was<br \/>\nrecovered from him.  But the statements of the other two accused Muthukumar and<br \/>\nMayandi are not found in the entire materials, and thus a clarification was<br \/>\nrequired which should have been asked for, but not done so.  Under the<br \/>\ncircumstances, the order suffers.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.Equally, there were two adverse cases and one ground case.  There was a<br \/>\nbail application filed in the first adverse case on 24.10.2008, and the same was<br \/>\ndismissed on 5.11.2008.  As far as the second adverse case and ground case are<br \/>\nconcerned, admittedly bail applications were not filed.  It is pertinent to<br \/>\npoint out that even the dismissal order was passed only in the first adverse<br \/>\ncase on 5.11.2008.  It remains to be stated that when the order under challenge<br \/>\ncame to be passed on 8.11.2008, within a short span of 3 days and that too while<br \/>\nno bail application was pending in the other two cases, the observation made by<br \/>\nthe authority that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail<br \/>\nwas not only without any basis, but also an apprehension in the mind of the<br \/>\nauthority.  It can even be commented as unwarranted. Under the circumstances,<br \/>\nthe order has got to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.As far as the other ground is concerned, a perusal of the Apex Court&#8217;s<br \/>\norder would indicate that it was only an interim order at that time.  In respect<br \/>\nof the present petitioners, in the considered opinion of the Court, that cannot<br \/>\nbe a ground to set aside the impugned order.  However on the grounds mentioned<br \/>\nabove, the order suffers.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.Accordingly, these habeas corpus petitions are allowed setting  aside<br \/>\nthe orders of the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The detenus are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is<br \/>\nrequired in connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n<p>nsv<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n  Prohibition and Excise Department<br \/>\n  Secretariat, Fort St. George<br \/>\n  Chennai 600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Collector<br \/>\n  Thirunelveli District<br \/>\n  Thirunelveli\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Superintendent of Police<br \/>\n  Thirunelveli District<br \/>\n  Thirunelveli\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Additional Public Prosecutor<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court<br \/>\n  Madurai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 April, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18\/04\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.MALA HCP (MD) Nos.42 to 44 of 2009 Muthukumar .. Petitioner in HCP 42\/2009 Mayandi @ Thatha .. Petitioner in HCP [&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-35596","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 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\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-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=\"2009-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-07T13:45:11+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-07T13:45:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1234,\"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\\\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-07T13:45:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 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":"Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 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\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-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":"2009-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-07T13:45:11+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-07T13:45:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009"},"wordCount":1234,"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\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009","name":"Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-07T13:45:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthukumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Muthukumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 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\/35596","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=35596"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35596\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35596"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35596"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35596"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}