- Joined
- Apr 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,070
- Points
- 0
AN INDIAN High Court has ruled out a bid to extradite a Singaporean wanted for a 1998 murder here, and ordered that a probe be held first to justify his arrest.
The move last week came after the suspect’s second wife, whom he married in India, applied for him to be freed on a petition of habeas corpus, or an application to free someone from detention.
The suspect, Dorairaju Sidambaram, aged 45 at the time of the incident, is wanted by Singapore police for the murder of his wife, Ms Apputhamaria S. Ramanathan.
The 41-year-old was found dead with multiple slash wounds in the bedroom of the couple’s Bishan flat. Dorairaju, said to be an army warrant officer in Seletar Camp, had gone missing then.
According to the papers before the Indian High Court, he “suspected the infidelity of his wife and caused fatal injuries, and informed his brother to take care of his sons and left for India on Sept 23, 1998”. They were married for almost 20 years and had three sons.
Dorairaju was said to have surfaced in Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu state in southern India, where he was picked up last July by Indian investigators after Singapore police had issued an arrest warrant and sought help through Interpol.
He lived in India under a new name, S. Ramesh, and married one Madam R. Selvi, in her mid-20s. They have two young children and work as farmers.
An Indian magistrate at the town of Thiruvaiyaru in Thanjavur had ordered his remand pending extradition.
But an Indian High Court bench ruled last week that a fugitive criminal cannot be taken into custody on the strength of an arrest warrant – if there is no extradition treaty between the two countries.
Singapore has had extradition arrangements with India since 1972 but not an extradition treaty, according to the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation website.
The Indian court, comprising Justice G.M. Akbar Ali and Justice S. Rajeswaran, ruled the arrest and remand invalid as the relevant law in the Extradition Act did not apply to countries without extradition treaties with India.
Justice Akbar Ali wrote that the arrest by police and subsequent detention by the judicial magistrate were “illegal and not under the procedures established under law”.
“The Inspector of Police of CB-CID (Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department) in Thanjavur was either ignorant or over-enthusiastic in arresting the fugitive criminal, as the facts of the case resemble an old Tamil cinema,” he added.
“Equally, the learned magistrate also cannot be blamed as these types of cases are very rare. But this court is duty-bound to settle the law and the procedures.”
It said the appropriate procedure was for a magistrate to hold an inquiry before deciding on the arrest or remand, in cases where there were extradition arrangements but not treaties.
In this case, a magistrate was appointed to inquire only after Dorairaju had been arrested and remanded, when the reverse was mandatory, said the court.
It ordered Dorairaju to be released on bail of 50,000 rupees (S$1,400) with two sureties. He was ordered to report daily to the police in Thanjavur, pending the extradition proceedings.
He is still being detained at Central Prison Trichy, pending completion of the bail procedures. His Chennai-based lawyer K. Jeganathan told The Straits Times last night that he would be challenging the validity of the magistrate’s probe order.
A hearing on this is due in the Madurai High Court next month, he said.
Singapore police spokesman Lau Kian Keong declined comment yesterday, deeming it inappropriate as the case is pending before the Indian courts.
The move last week came after the suspect’s second wife, whom he married in India, applied for him to be freed on a petition of habeas corpus, or an application to free someone from detention.
The suspect, Dorairaju Sidambaram, aged 45 at the time of the incident, is wanted by Singapore police for the murder of his wife, Ms Apputhamaria S. Ramanathan.
The 41-year-old was found dead with multiple slash wounds in the bedroom of the couple’s Bishan flat. Dorairaju, said to be an army warrant officer in Seletar Camp, had gone missing then.
According to the papers before the Indian High Court, he “suspected the infidelity of his wife and caused fatal injuries, and informed his brother to take care of his sons and left for India on Sept 23, 1998”. They were married for almost 20 years and had three sons.
Dorairaju was said to have surfaced in Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu state in southern India, where he was picked up last July by Indian investigators after Singapore police had issued an arrest warrant and sought help through Interpol.
He lived in India under a new name, S. Ramesh, and married one Madam R. Selvi, in her mid-20s. They have two young children and work as farmers.
An Indian magistrate at the town of Thiruvaiyaru in Thanjavur had ordered his remand pending extradition.
But an Indian High Court bench ruled last week that a fugitive criminal cannot be taken into custody on the strength of an arrest warrant – if there is no extradition treaty between the two countries.
Singapore has had extradition arrangements with India since 1972 but not an extradition treaty, according to the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation website.
The Indian court, comprising Justice G.M. Akbar Ali and Justice S. Rajeswaran, ruled the arrest and remand invalid as the relevant law in the Extradition Act did not apply to countries without extradition treaties with India.
Justice Akbar Ali wrote that the arrest by police and subsequent detention by the judicial magistrate were “illegal and not under the procedures established under law”.
“The Inspector of Police of CB-CID (Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department) in Thanjavur was either ignorant or over-enthusiastic in arresting the fugitive criminal, as the facts of the case resemble an old Tamil cinema,” he added.
“Equally, the learned magistrate also cannot be blamed as these types of cases are very rare. But this court is duty-bound to settle the law and the procedures.”
It said the appropriate procedure was for a magistrate to hold an inquiry before deciding on the arrest or remand, in cases where there were extradition arrangements but not treaties.
In this case, a magistrate was appointed to inquire only after Dorairaju had been arrested and remanded, when the reverse was mandatory, said the court.
It ordered Dorairaju to be released on bail of 50,000 rupees (S$1,400) with two sureties. He was ordered to report daily to the police in Thanjavur, pending the extradition proceedings.
He is still being detained at Central Prison Trichy, pending completion of the bail procedures. His Chennai-based lawyer K. Jeganathan told The Straits Times last night that he would be challenging the validity of the magistrate’s probe order.
A hearing on this is due in the Madurai High Court next month, he said.
Singapore police spokesman Lau Kian Keong declined comment yesterday, deeming it inappropriate as the case is pending before the Indian courts.
