Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondent to produce detenu Uthirapathy, S/o.Shanmugam, before Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. One R.Ravichandran, friend of Uthirapathy, s/o.Shanmugam, accused No.8 in C.C.No.9 of 1994 on the file of Designated Court No.II under TADA (P) Act, 1987, Chennai-104, has filed the above Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondent – Deputy Superintendent of Police, 'Q' Branch, C.I.D, Cuddalore, to produce detenu Uthirapathy and set him at liberty. 2. The above Petition has been filed only on the allegation that though the detenu was arrested on 09.08.2000, he continues to be kept in jail for over five years, and such prolonged custody is unjust, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 'Q' Branch, C.I.D., Cuddalore, it is stated that accused No.8/detenu and others are the supporters of L.T.T.E., a banned Organisation, and their involvement in activities supporting the cause of the said Organisation was proved in a case relating to Villupuram Town P.S. Cr. No.50 of 2003, viz., C.C.No.6 of 1994, which ended in conviction. It is also stated that since the prosecution has examined all the witnesses and closed their side even on 04.10.2005, the recourse to Habeas Corpus Petition is not sustainable in law. It is also stated that his Bail Application was dismissed by the Designated Court in Crl.M.P. No.44 of 2005 on 20.04.2006 on the ground that though the prosecution has completed the examination of 58 witnesses as early as on 26.09.2005 and closed their side on 04.10.2005, the defence did not choose to cross examine 44 witnesses including the eye witnesses. It is pointed out that the defence, even after allowing of the Recall Petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., did not take steps to issue any process. In other words, according to the prosecution, the trial is proceeding in a dilatory fashion only due to the delay in tactics adopted by the defence. It is pointed out that the defence, even after allowing of the Recall Petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., did not take steps to issue any process. In other words, according to the prosecution, the trial is proceeding in a dilatory fashion only due to the delay in tactics adopted by the defence. It is specifically stated that earlier Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the very same person, viz., Uthirapathy, detenu in this petition, was dismissed by this Court on 13.08.2004 and the subsequent H.C.P. was also dismissed on 6.12.2004. 5. Though Mr.Sankarasubbu is very well aware of the earlier orders passed by this Court, dismissing the HCPs filed by the very same detenu (Uthirapathy), still he argued the matter on the ground that the detenu is languishing in Jail from 09.08.2000. He also relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 366 (Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India) and contended that the detenu comes under category '(b)' as stated in para No.13 of the said decision, accordingly, after expiry of five years period in prison, he is entitled to be released on bail. He also contended that though the Designated Court dismissed the Bail Application in Cr.M.P. No.44 of 2005 on 20.04.2006, the present H.C.P. is maintainable on the ground that the detenu's continuance in Prison beyond five years is unjust and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. He also contended that though the Designated Court dismissed the Bail Application in Cr.M.P. No.44 of 2005 on 20.04.2006, the present H.C.P. is maintainable on the ground that the detenu's continuance in Prison beyond five years is unjust and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Paragraph No.13 of the above mentioned decision of the Supreme Court reads as under:- "For the purpose of grant of bail to TADA detenus, we divide the undertrials into three (sic four) classes, namely, (a) hardcore undertrials whose release would prejudice the prosecution case and whose liberty may prove to be a menace to society in general and to the complainant and prosecution witnesses in particular; (b) other undertrials whose overt acts or involvement directly attract Sections 3 and/or 4 of the TADA Act; (c) undertrials who are roped in, not because of any activity directly attracting Sections 3 and 4, but by virtue of Section 120-B or 147, IPC, and; (d) those undertrials who were found possessing incriminating articles in notified areas and are booked under Section 5 of TADA.” In paragraph No.14, Their Lordships, after observing that while adopting a pragmatic and just approach, no one can dispute the fact that all of them cannot be dealt with by the same yardstick, concluded that undertrials falling within group (a) cannot receive liberal treatment. They further observed that the cases of undertrials falling in group (b) would have to be differently dealt with, in that, if they have been in prison for five years or more and their trial is not likely to be completed within the next six months, they can be released on bail unless the court comes to the conclusion that their antecedents are such that releasing them may be harmful to the lives of the complainant, the family members of the complainant or witnesses. They also held that the cases of undertrials falling in groups (c) and (d) can be dealt with leniently and they can be released if they have been in jail for three years and two years respectively. 7. We are not concerned here with categories 'c' and 'd'. They also held that the cases of undertrials falling in groups (c) and (d) can be dealt with leniently and they can be released if they have been in jail for three years and two years respectively. 7. We are not concerned here with categories 'c' and 'd'. According to Mr.Sankarasubbu, clause '(b)' is applicable to the case of the detenu, on the other hand, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in view of detenu's involvement in various other cases and availability of adequate materials to show that he is a supporter of L.T.T.E. and a hardcore criminal, clause-'(a)' alone is applicable. The materials/details furnished in the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police show that the accused/detenu cannot be put under clause-b and that clause-a alone is applicable to him. 8. As rightly pointed out by the Designated Court while dismissing the Bail Petition on 20.04.2006, the prosecution has completed the examination of their witnesses even on 26.09.2005 and closed their side on 04.10.2005 and it is the defence who are taking time for one reason or other. That being so, we are of the view that the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to at this juncture. It is also relevant to note that even after allowing of the Recall Petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the defence, they did not take any diligent step to issue process. It is also brought to our notice that the trial is getting delayed only at the instance of the defence. Even in respect of the direction in paragraph Nos.13 and 14, further observation of Their Lordships in paragraph No.15 of the decision in Shaheen Welfare Association's case is relevant, which reads as follows:- "15. These conditions may be relaxed in cases of those under groups (c) and (d) and, for special reasons to be recorded, in the case of group (b) prisoners. Also these directions may not be applied by the Designated Court in exceptionally grave cases such as the Bombay Bomb Blast case where a lengthy trial is inevitable looking to the number of accused, the number of witnesses and the nature of charges unless the court feels that the trial is being unduly delayed. Also these directions may not be applied by the Designated Court in exceptionally grave cases such as the Bombay Bomb Blast case where a lengthy trial is inevitable looking to the number of accused, the number of witnesses and the nature of charges unless the court feels that the trial is being unduly delayed. However, even in such cases, it is essential that the Review Committee examined the case against each accused bearing the above directions in mind, to ensure that TADA provisions are not unnecessarily invoked." 9. In order to appreciate the claim of the parties, we also perused the reasoning given by the Designated Court in Crl.M.P. No.44 of 2005 dated 20.04.2006. Though, as against the said Order, an Appeal lies to the Supreme Court under Section 19(1) of the Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, admittedly, no appeal has been filed. It is also relevant to note that, according to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, detenu Uthirapathy, viz., A-8, was absconding from the date of occurrence and after great difficulty, he was arrested on 09.08.2000 in Sivagangai P.S. Cr. No.25 of 2000 and remanded to judicial custody by Designated Court No.II on 21.11.2000. Inasmuch as the prosecution has closed their side 04.10.2005, the detenu cannot claim the relief as if he is in prolonged custody. As rightly pointed out, had the defence cross examined the witnesses of the prosecution, the case would have been finished at the earliest point of time before December, 2005. 10. In identical circumstances, after taking note of the fact that the prosecution either closed their side or nearing completion, Division Benches of this Court, by various orders, dismissed similar Habeas Corpus Petitions, vide, a. HCP Nos.1488 to 1490 of 2003, dt.04.03.2004 (V.S.Sirpurkar, J. & F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.); b. HCP Nos.539, 541, 543 & 544 of 2004, dt.13.08.2004 (P.Sathasivam, J. & S.Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.); c. HCP Nos.1193 and 1194 of 2004, dt.06.12.2004 (M.Karpagavinayagam, J. & C.Nagappan, J.); d. HCP Nos.528 & 572 of 2005, dt.07.07.2005 (P.Sathasivam, J. & AR.Ramalingam, J.) 11. Apart from the above details, it is also brought to our notice that a co-accused by name Murugesan, who was released on bail on the orders of the court, was absconding and he was declared as a proclaimed offender. Apart from the above details, it is also brought to our notice that a co-accused by name Murugesan, who was released on bail on the orders of the court, was absconding and he was declared as a proclaimed offender. It is also stated that one Kali @ Ravichandran, who was released on bail, also not complying with the conditions and his whereabouts are not known. We have already noted that even the detenu herein was absconding from the date of occurrence and, according to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, only after great difficulty, he was arrested on 09.08.2000. Taking note of all these factual aspects as also the observation in para No.15 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shaheen Welfare Association's case (cited supra), we hold that the petitioner has not made out a case to set detenu Uthirapathy at liberty at this juncture. 12. Though we intend to fix an outer limit for early completion of the trial, in view of the fact that the prosecution has closed their side and it is only at the instance of the defence the trial is getting delayed by not cross examining the witnesses and also in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in 2002 SCC Crl. 830 (P.Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka), whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court disapproved the practice of fixing outer limit for completion of the trial without knowing the factual details therein; we are not issuing any direction on that aspect. However, the Designated Court is directed to take all endeavour for early completion of the trial. 13. With the above observation, this petition is dismissed.