Petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 seeking production and release of detenu Ayyasamy. Court noted the detenu had been remanded to judicial custody in a criminal case involving specific IPC sections. Finding no illegal detention, the petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 28.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
H.C.P. No.2026 of 2015
Palaniammal ...Petitioner
-v-
1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Chennai-600 007.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3.The Inspector of Police, Elavarasankottai Police Station, Villupuram District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Kundrathur Police Station, Kancheepuram District. ...Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu Ayyasamy, aged about 18 years, son of Pitchaikaran, now in illegal custody of respondents, before this Court and set him at liberty.
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to cause production of the detenu Ayyasamy, aged about 18 years, son of Pitchaikaran, before this Court and to
set him at liberty.
2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenu has been arrested in connection with a criminal case registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 292 and 427 IPC on the file of S-8 Adambakkam Police Station and he was remanded to judicial custody in furtherance of the remand order dated 20.08.2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.
3.As there is no illegal detention and the alleged detenu has been remanded to judicial custody, pursuant to a criminal case, we are of the view that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4.It is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, according to law.
5.With the above observation, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vga
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City, Chennai-600 007.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 3.The Inspector of Police, Elavarasankottai Police Station, Villupuram District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Kundrathur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.
H.C.P. No.2026 of 2015
MP (CO) PSI (15.09.2015)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the detenu being remanded to judicial custody in a criminal case
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Palaniammal
Commissioner of Police, Chennai City
Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District
Inspector of Police, Elavarasankottai Police Station
Inspector of Police, Kundrathur Police Station
Dr.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN
MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
