MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court recently held that a second habeas corpus petition (HCP) against the same detention order is not maintainable unless it is based on new grounds that did not exist at the time of dismissal of the first petition.
A bench of justices S M Subramaniam and G Arul Murugan made the observations while hearing a HCP filed by Mirtunaj Kumar, challenging the detention of his brother U Rohit Kumar (27) under Goondas Act, in connection with the Flipkart price coupon fraud case.
According to the prosecution, several FIRs were registered against Rohit by various crime branch units across Tiruchy, Kancheepuram, Cuddalore, Tirupattur and Madurai districts for his alleged involvement in a fraudulent scheme that offered fake price coupons to unsuspecting investors. Since the ramifications of the case spread across the country, he was arrested in August 2024, and was lodged in Madurai Central Prison. To protect the interests of the victims, Theni collector invoked Act 14 of 1982 (commonly known as the Goondas Act) against him the following month, the prosecution added.
A HCP filed by his brother last year, challenging the detention order, was dismissed by a division bench of justices G Jayachandran and R Poornima, with a view that invoking preventive detention to address the panic among investors was justifiable. However, instead of challenging the order before the Supreme Court, Mirtunaj filed a second HCP against the same detention order, claiming that it infringes the personal liberty of the detenue, which is a fundamental right.
Hearing the second petition, the division bench headed by Justice Subramaniam observed that when a second HCP is filed against the same detention order, the court has to draw a distinction between the two petitions in the context of the grounds raised. Otherwise, it would lead to filing of multiple HCPs against the same detention order "with a motive of Bench hunting" (advocates or litigants attempting to get their case listed before a specific court or judge who is likely to be more favourable to their case), the judges observed.
Further, they said, it will lead to a situation where habeas corpus petitions are treated as bail petitions. Grounds which were available during the hearing of the first petition but were unfortunately not raised are also not valid for filing a second HCP, they clarified, and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.