Shagitha Vs
Case brief
What is this about?
In a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of alleged detenues missing since May 2015, Madras High Court noted the detenues' presence in court. After recording the detenue's explanation regarding her travel to Salem, the court ordered the closure of the petition, deeming further procedure unnecessary as long as the individuals are at large
What did the court decide?
The High Court ordered that the Habeas Corpus Petition be closed after the detenues were produced before the Court.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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 : 28.09.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN
and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
H.C.P.No.2264 OF 2015
Shagitha ... Petitioner/Mother of the Detenue Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondent Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus petition directing the respondent to produce the detenues, namely, Yasmin, aged about 24 years, Veesha Parin aged about 6 years and Suheb Malick aged about 4 years before this Court and set them at liberty.
For Petitioner : No appearance For 1st Respondent : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN, J.)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner to produce the detenues, namely, Yasmin, aged about 24 years, Veesha Parin aged about 6 years and Suheb Malick aged about 4 years, who are all her daughter and grand children respectively and said to be missing from 28.05.2015 onwards, before this Court and set them at liberty.
- Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the habeas corpus petition should be followed up given the production of the alleged detenues.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Shagitha
- respondent
State represented by the Inspector of Police
Coram
DR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court