G.Senguttuvan, v. the Inspector of Police
Case brief
What is this about?
In a habeas corpus petition seeking production of an absconding prisoner, the Court held the petition not maintainable for the specific relief sought. It directed the State to use CrPC provisions and suggested bifurcating the trial against available and absent accused.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 20.12.2017
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER & THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
H.C.P.No.2420 of 2017
G.Senguttuvan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Police,
Trichy & District.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvarur & District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Paravakottai Police Station,
Thiruvarur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely poyyamozhi S/o.Palaiya aged about 53 years before this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran
For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by RAJIV SHAKDHER, J)
1.This is a petition, whereby, a direction is sought qua, the respondents to secure the presence of the
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable to direct the State to produce an absconding accused.
Whether the petitioner, an eye-witness, is justified in not deposing due to the accused's absence.
What procedural measures the trial court could take to secure the presence of an absconding accused.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
G.Senguttuvan
- respondent
The Inspector General of Police, Trichy & District
- respondent
The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur & District
- respondent
The Inspector of Police, Paravakottai Police Station, Thiruvarur District
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court