Disposed

Pavathal @ Pappathi v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC24 Nov 2015HCP/1023/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition seeking production of a missing husband, the court closed the matter after reviewing police status reports on the investigation and a witness account of a last sighting. The court directed the police to proceed with the investigation diligently and inform the petitioner of developments, finding no evidence of illegal detention.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed with a direction to the police to proceed with the investigation diligently and inform the petitioner of developments.

Pavathal @ Pappathi Vs the Superintenden… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 24.11.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

H.C.P. NO. 1023 OF 2015

¶7

Pavathal @ Pappathi .. Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The Superintendent of Police
Namakkal District, Namakkal.
2. The Inspector of Police
Nallur Police Station
Namakkal District.
3. S.Rajasekar
4. The Superintendent olf Police
Railways, Salem Division. .. Respondents
(R-4 impleaded Suo Motu vide order of
Court dated 3.6.15)

¶8

Petition filed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to secure the detenu, P.Selvaraj, aged 49 years, the husband of the petitioner, produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. N.Manokaran

¶10

For Respondents: Mr. A.N.Thambidurai,

¶11

APP for RR-1, 2 & 4 Mr. P.R.Balasubramanian for R-3

¶12

ORDER (DELIVERED BY P.N.PRAKASH, J.)

¶13

This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to secure the detenu, P.Selvaraj, aged 49 years, the husband of the petitioner, produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that her husband, who was working in a Rig unit, stationed at Chatirapur, Madhya Pradesh, had gone missing.

¶17

On notice, the fourth respondent, Railway police have filed two status reports, wherein they have stated that a case in Crime No.93/15 for 'Man Missing' has been registered by the Salem Railway Police on 11.4.15 on the complaint given by the petitioner and investigation is in progress. While detailing the steps taken for tracing the detenu, in para-9 of the report it is stated as hereunder :-

¶18

"9. I submit that I have given requisition to the Nodal Officer of the concerned service provider for getting call detail records of the detenu's mobile Nos.9788044983, 08150976069. I have received call detail records of detenu's mobile number. It reveals that the last call made on 24.12.2014 at 18.48 hours at that time, the tower location was in the area of Grass land. Laxam Singh, Simardha near Jansi, Uttar Pradesh and after that it was switched off. And also reveals that the last call made from the detenu's mobile to one Punniyamurthy, who is the friend of the detenu and his mobile number is 8344682699. I have enquired the above said mobile number, but no fruitful information received from him. Also I have given requisition letter to the concerned Nodal Officer to trace IMEL No.359712051979380 & 359713051979380 of the detenu and as a result, the said IMEI numbers were not traced in any of cellphone network. Hence, no fruitful lead/clue was arrived about the detenu Selvaraj."

¶19

Today, the third respondent, Rajasekar, is present before this Court and he stated that the third respondent along with the detenu and driver Marappan boarded the Kerala Express bound for Chennai at Jhansi and at that time he had seen the detenu. On reaching Salem, he did not find the detenu and it was he who had informed the family of the detenu.

¶20

On going through the status report we find that the police have taken their best efforts to secure the detenu. Since there is no material to infer that there is illegal detention of the alleged detenu by any specific person, we are inclined to close this petition.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

Accordingly, this petition is closed with a direction to the respondent police to proceed with the investigation diligently and keep the petitioner informed about the development/break through in the case.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶24

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
GLN
To
1. The Superintendent of Police
Namakkal District
Namakkal.
2. The Inspector of Police
Nallur Police Station
Namakkal District.
3. The Superintendent olf Police
Railways, Salem Division.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.N. Manokaran, Advocate, S.R.No.63791
+1cc to Mr.P.R. Balasubramanian, Advocate, S.R.No.63663
PUR(CO)
EU(15/12/2015)
H.C.P. NO.1023 OF 2015

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Pavathal @ Pappathi v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavathal @ Pappathi v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabiya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Syed Abudhakir Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

C.Anuradha Vs Inspector of Police

Smt.R.Nirmala Vs the State Rep by

Porkodi Vs the Superintendent of Prison

Nalini Vs the State Rep by