Dismissed

Nalini v. the State Rep by

Madras HC24 Nov 2015HCP/3302/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for habeas corpus filed by wife of missing husband seeking production of the detenu. Court found husband likely went underground to avoid creditors. Petition closed with direction to police to proceed with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus rejected; petition closed with direction to police to pursue investigation in Crime No. 1767 of 2014.

Nalini Vs the State Rep by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.11.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Habeas Corpus Petition No.3302 of 2014

¶6

Nalini
.... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State,
represented by The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City, Chennai.
2. The State,
represented by
The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
T.Nagar Police District,
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.
3. The State,
rep. by the Inspector of Police,
R-1 Mambalam Police Station,
Chennai - 600 017.
.... Respondents
PETITION under Section 226 of The Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing
respondents 1 to 3 to produce the body and person of the detenu
Mr.Suresh Kumar aged about 50 years the husband of the
petitioner before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balaji

¶8

For Respondents: Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH,J.)

¶9

This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu Suresh Kumar for direction to the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶10

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

¶11

It is the case of the petitioner that her husband went missing, in connection with which a case in Crime No.1767 of 2014 has been registered by the Inspector of Police, R-1 Mambalam Police Station for man missing and investigation is in progress.

¶12

The respondent-police have filed a status report dated.05.02.2015 detailing the steps that have been taken by them to secure the alleged detenu. From the Status Report, it is seen that the petitioner's husband was in heavy debts and in order to avoid his creditors, he appears to have gone underground. This fact is also referred to by the petitioner in paragraph 7 of her affidavit.

¶13

In such circumstances, we are of the view that it is not a case where the alleged detenu is under illegal detention of anyone warranting issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus. Accordingly, this Petition stands closed, however, with a direction to the respondent police to proceed with the investigation in Crime No.1767 of 2014 and keep the petitioner informed about the developments.

¶14

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sl
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City, Chennai.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
T.Nagar Police District,
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.
3. The Inspector of Police,
R-1 Mambalam Police Station,
Chennai - 600 017.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.K. Balaji, Advocate sr.63500
H.C.P.No.3302 of 2014
MG(CO)
EU 15.12.15

¶15

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

Nalini v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalini v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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

J.Selvi Vs the Station House Officer