In a Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner failed to appear. The Additional Public Prosecutor stated the detenue was returned to parents. The court dismissed the petition.
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 : 09.8.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
H.C.P.No.1175/2016
U.Murugaiyan .. Petitioner
Vs
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS directing the respondents to produce the detenue, namely M.Meena Rubala, daughter of the petitioner, who is aged 18 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.
[Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J] Today, when the Habeas Corpus Petition came up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. The petitioner also did not make appearance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
U.Murugaiyan
Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur
Inspector of Police, Thiruthuraipoondi
Inspector of Police, Muthupet
S.Nagamuthu
V.Bharathidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
