Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is as follows: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 to the petitioner as compensation for illegal detention over eight months and pass such further order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper. This petition has been signed on 11th day of September 1990 and the respondents are Union Territory of Pondicherry and Inspector of Police, CBCID, Pondicherry. ( 2 ) THE petitioner Muthusamy, who claims compensation has sworn to an affidavit in support of his prayer in the writ petition, and the salient facts stated therein are as follows: The petitioner was one of the accused in S. C. No. 9/88 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, the offence alleged against him being punishable under Ss. 120b, 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code. He was released on bail, in the said case on 16-6-1984. While he was on bail he was falsely implicated in another Sessions Case in S. C. No. 126 of 1985 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Coimbatore. In S. C. No. 126 of 1985 on a charge of murder he was sentenced to death by a judgment dated 30/6/1987 and in pursuance thereof he was detained at the Central Prison Coimbatore. The petitioner was transmitted to Central Prison Pondicherry on the basis of prisoners transfer warrant to facilitate his participation in the trial in S. C. No. 9 of 1988 before the Pondicherry Court The petitioner preferred an appeal against the capital sentence awarded to him by the Coimbatore Sessions Court. R. T. 12 of 1987, which was taken up along with the petitioners appeal in C. A. 544 of 1987 by this Court, ended in his acquittal, by judgment dated 10th August 1988. The order of this Court was communicated to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore as well as the Chief Superintendent of jail, Pondicherry. The petitioner was not set at liberty even after his acquittal on 10-8-1988, though in S. C. No. 9 of 1988 he was already on bail. His remand was being extended from time to time. The order of this Court was communicated to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore as well as the Chief Superintendent of jail, Pondicherry. The petitioner was not set at liberty even after his acquittal on 10-8-1988, though in S. C. No. 9 of 1988 he was already on bail. His remand was being extended from time to time. His oral plea was not entertained and he was directed to file an application for bail. The petitioner preferred a bail application setting out all details with specific reference to his acquittal. But he was not released by this Court due to the false representation made by the respondents that the petitioner had never been enlarged on bail earlier and his release would affect the fair trial of the case, since it was apprehended that he would jump bail and flee from justice. The aforesaid representation of the respondents was palpably false since it was contrary to the order passed under Section 167 Cr. P. C. If the respondents had not mis-directed this Court, he would have been released on bail and his plea would not have been turned down. The respondents were legally bound to give true information of all the facts and circumstances without misleading this court. In view of such misrepresentation, the petitioner had suffered illegal detention for over eight months and the same may have to be adequately compensated. The petitioner had estimated the compensation to be awarded at Rs. 50,000/ -. ( 3 ) THE second respondent N. Stalin Jasan, Inspector of Police, CBCID Branch, Pondicherry, has filed a counter affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the first respondent. He has stated, that a writ for issue of habeas as framed cannot be maintained. On the date of filing of the application, the petitioner was not in illegal custody, he having been released on bail by the Court of Session, Pondicherry on 10-4-1989. When the petitioner filed this writ petition in September 1989, he was not in custody and a writ simpliciter for compensation cannot be maintained. The second respondent has also stated in his counter affidavit, that the petitioner had neither made any bail application before this Court nor the second respondent or any other officer objected to the release of the petitioner on bail. The second respondent has also stated in his counter affidavit, that the petitioner had neither made any bail application before this Court nor the second respondent or any other officer objected to the release of the petitioner on bail. Therefore there was no scope for having disputed the earlier enlargement of the petitioner on bail, pending trial in the Pondicherry Sessions Case or raising objection that in the event of release he would jump bail. This was false and baseless allegation. The petitioner had suppressed several facts and had placed contradictory material to suit his convenience. The petition which is vague and without definite details, entails dismissal. The petitioner had moved an application before this court in Crl. M. P. No. 3649 of 1989 to recall the warrant issued in S. C. No. 9 of 1988 on the file of the first Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. On that application being ordered, the petitioner was released on 10-4-1989. ( 4 ) WE have heard Mr. R. Sankara Subbu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K. S. Ahamed, learned Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry appearing on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Sankara Subbu, contended that though the petitioner was not in illegal custody at the time of filing of this writ petition, he could still maintain a writ of habeas corpus for compensation alone. He conceded that no application for bail was filed before this court, but the petitioner had preferred Crl. M. P. No. 109 of 1988 before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. It was dismissed on 23-12-1988. He contended, that the period of detention between 10-8-1988 and 10-4-1989, when the petitioner was released in pursuance of the order of this court in Crl. M. P. No. 3649 of 1989, must be held to be illegal detention. ( 5 ) MR. K. S. Ahamed, learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry contended that the petitioner was never under illegal custody. The petition had been forwarded under prisoner-transfer-warrant to the central jail, Pondicherry. His custody throughout till his release was based on court orders and therefore it cannot be contended that the petitioner had been illegally detained. ( 5 ) MR. K. S. Ahamed, learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry contended that the petitioner was never under illegal custody. The petition had been forwarded under prisoner-transfer-warrant to the central jail, Pondicherry. His custody throughout till his release was based on court orders and therefore it cannot be contended that the petitioner had been illegally detained. He further pointed out that the petitioner had preferred Criminal M. P. No. 228/89 before the first Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry under Section 340 Indian Penal Code, to prosecute the second respondent for an offence under Section 193 Indian Penal Code, on the basis, that the petitioner had been illegally detained, due to false evidence (false report) of the respondents. The first Additional Sessions Judge, holding that the respondents had acted in good faith and had not intentionally suppressed the truth, dismissed the said petition the petition chose to challenge the said order before this court in Crl. M. P. No. 9067 of 1989, but later withdrew the same on 5-12-1989. The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously contended that this petition, for the issue of a habeas corpus was not at all maintainable. ( 6 ) WE have carefully considered the rival contentions of the opposing Counsel. Mr. Sankara Subbu, relied upon a few decisions of the apex Court to substantiate his pica, that a writ of habeas corpus will be maintainable even if the petitioner did not happen to be in custody. In Rubul Sah v. State of Bihar1, it was observed by the apex Court, that in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court can pass an order for the payment of money in the nature of compensation, consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right to life and liberty. In that case the petitioner had been detained illegally in prison for over 14 years after his acquittal in a full-fledged trial. He filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court for his release from illegal detention. He obtained that relief, his detention in the prison after his acquittal, being wholly unjustified. In that case the petitioner had been detained illegally in prison for over 14 years after his acquittal in a full-fledged trial. He filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court for his release from illegal detention. He obtained that relief, his detention in the prison after his acquittal, being wholly unjustified. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner therein had been released from jail and the Supreme Court had passed a specific order that the release of the petitioner cannot be the end of the matter and the Government of Bihar was called upon to submit a written explanation supported by an affidavit as to why the petitioner was kept in jail for over 14 years after his acquittal. In that case, the apex court had observed that it was true that Article 32 of the Constitution of India, cannot be used as substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which may be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary process of courts, civil and criminal. A money claim has therefore to be agitated and adjudicated upon in a suit instituted in a lowest Court competent to try it. But the important question for consideration was, whether in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, Constitution of India, that court could pass an order for payment of money, if such an order was in the nature of compensation, consequential upon deprivation of a fundamental right. That case was taken to be illustrative of similar such cases. He obtained the relief on the finding of the Supreme Court that his detention after acquittal was wholly unjustified. It is in those special circumstances, the Supreme Court considered the question of payment of compensation in the habeas corpus itself, and more so, since his claim for compensation was not factually controversial. Illegality of the detention had to be upheld. The observation of the Supreme Court further was that the petitioner could have been relegated to the ordinary remedy of suit, if his claim to compensation had been factually controversial in the sense, that a civil Court mayor may not have upheld his claim. Illegality of the detention had to be upheld. The observation of the Supreme Court further was that the petitioner could have been relegated to the ordinary remedy of suit, if his claim to compensation had been factually controversial in the sense, that a civil Court mayor may not have upheld his claim. We are satisfied that on the facts of this case, where the petitioner was not in custody at the time when he preferred this writ petition and his claim of having been illegally detained has been factually controverted, there will be no scope to accede to the relief prayed for by the petitioner, in this writ petition. In Bandhavan Luki Morcha v. Union of India2 and that the Supreme Court had stated is that any member of the public acting bona fide can move the court for relief under Article 32, Constitution of India and a fortiori under Art 226, Constitution of India so that the fundamental rights may become meaningful not only for the rich and the whole body who have the means to approach the Court but also for the large masses of people, who are destitutes and who are living a life of want and who are by reason of lack of awareness, assertiveness and resources unable to seek judicial redress. This decision can be of no help to the petitioner, since we have gone into the merits of this writ petition. In Beemsihgh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir3 the apex court was concerned with the member of the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, who was in detention when the writ was filed and who was released during the pendency of the writ petition. The Supreme Court observed, that where a member of Legislative Assembly was arrested while enroute to attend the assembly and in consequence the member was deprived of his constitutional rights to attend the Assembly Session, and responsibility for arrest lay with higher echelon of the Government, it was a fit case for compensating the victim by awarding compensation. The facts in this writ petition can stand no comparison to the facts detailed by the Supreme. Court. The decision of the Supreme Court in Senkiram Basha v. Government of Andhra Pradesh4, is not all attracted to the question involved in this writ petition. The facts in this writ petition can stand no comparison to the facts detailed by the Supreme. Court. The decision of the Supreme Court in Senkiram Basha v. Government of Andhra Pradesh4, is not all attracted to the question involved in this writ petition. In that case the Supreme Court observed, that for enforcement of a right, a writ petition for protection of such right from its threatened r imminent violation was maintainable under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India. Previolation protection was different from post violation, restoration of right. Right can be enforced at both stages. Where during pendency of the writ petition for protection of right under Article 21 from its threatened or imminent violation, the petitioner was taken into custody in preventive detention, though released after four days, it was held that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition and asking the petitioner to first surrender and then move a fresh Writ Petition. After case law, now the facts. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was released in pursuance of the order of this court, made in Criminal M. P. No. 3649 of 1989, dated 27-3 1989. At the time of filing the writ petition, the writ petitioner was not in illegal detention and was a free man. It is clear from the arguments of Mr. R. Shankara Subbu, that in S. C. No. 9 of 1988, on the file of the first Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, the petitioner was released on bail due to the default of the prosecution in not having filed the charge sheet within 90 days. Subsequent to his release on bail, the petitioner was involved in yet another case before the Sessions Court, Coimbatore. Meanwhile committal had intervened. After the acquittal of the petitioner by this Court in R. T. 12 of 1987 referable to S. C. No. 126 of 1985 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, the petitioner had not moved any bail application before this Court. To that extent, statement of facts in the writ petition, are erroneous. Of course, the petitioner had moved the first Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry for bail in Crl. M. P. No. 809 of 1988, but the same had been dismissed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge reads as hereunder Order pronounced. To that extent, statement of facts in the writ petition, are erroneous. Of course, the petitioner had moved the first Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry for bail in Crl. M. P. No. 809 of 1988, but the same had been dismissed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge reads as hereunder Order pronounced. Charge had been framed against accused and the case is posted to 6-2-1989 for trial. I am of the view that petition may be dismissed at this stage. Hence petition is dismissed. T The order of the learned Sessions Judge shows that apparently no false representation had been made to entail dismissal of the bail plea. We cannot also overlook that the Sessions Judge need not have to be deterred by the provisions of the proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is not applicable to the accused, after he stood committed to the Court of Sessions. If any authority is required for this proposition, it is available in the decision of the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab5. After committal the petitioner had rightly moved for bail and for the reasons stated in his order extracted earlier, the Court of Sessions had refused bail at that stage. We are unable to hold on the material placed before us, that the petitioner had been illegally detained during the pendency of the Sessions case at Coimbatore. To facilitate his participation in the Sessions case at Pondicherry, the prisoner had been sent to the central prison, Pondicherry on a prison-transfer warrant. That was definitely legal. The petitioner had also taken steps to have the second respondent prosecuted under Section 193 Indian Penal Code, on the basis of alleged false representation before Court of Sessions, but such a course was not acceded to, by the Court below, on the ground that the second respondent had acted in good faith and there was no intention of suppression of truth. The petitioner had chosen to withdraw his challenge of that order made before this court in Crl. The petitioner had chosen to withdraw his challenge of that order made before this court in Crl. M. P. No. 9067 of 1989 when this court was made aware of the issue of a non-bailable warrant by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, against the petitioner, in S. C. 9 of 1988, on the totality of facts, inclusive of bail on default obtained by the petitioner and his acquittal in R. T. 12 of 1987, he was directed to be set at liberty on his appearance before the Pondicherry Sessions Court on 10/4/1989 and he was accordingly set at liberty. We entirely agree with the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry that no case has been made out in this writ petition to and for compensation. It also appears clear which justifies the stand of the respondents, that this petition for issue of habeas corpus cannot be maintained, when the petitioner is no longer in detention much less illegal. The allegation of illegal detention is not without controversy and those questions cannot be gone into a in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and if the petitioner is still aggrieved, his remedy is elsewhere. Recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot always be an infallible passport for mechanical entry into the court threshold, for a habeas for compensation alone, irrespective of special and adequate circumstances, especially when the petitioner was not in illegal or wrongful confinement, at the time of presentation of the writ petition. This writ petition which has no merits shall stand dismissed. Petition dismissed.