Dismissed

Vinoth Kumar, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC12 Sept 2017HCP(MD)/1307/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition for the production of his wife, alleging illegal custody by private respondents. The detenue stated she was with her parents and not under illegal custody. The court held there was no illegal detention and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Habeas Corpus petition closed and dismissed as there is no illegal detention involved.

Vinoth Kumar, Vs the Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.09.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.1307 of 2017

¶7

Vinoth Kumar ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Kalayarkoil Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai All Women Police Station, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶12

4.Alagarsamy 5.Annakodi ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the body and person of the detenue, petitioner's wife Gokila (W/o. Vinoth Kumar), aged about 23 years, D/o. Alagarsamy from the illegal custody of the respondents 4 & 5 and their men before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kannan

¶15

For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.T.Mohan

¶16

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

For Respondents 4 & 5 : Mr.S.M.Sanjay

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner has filed this petition seeking production of his wife from the custody of respondents 4 and 5 and to set her at liberty.

¶20

¶21

2.The detenue is a major. She has been produced before this

¶22

Court by respondents 4 & 5. She has informed us that she is with her parents and she is not under the illegal custody of them.

¶23

3.In such view of the matter, there is no illegal detention involved. Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar.

¶26

To:

¶27

1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kalayarkoil Police Station, Sivagangai District. 3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1CC to Mr.V.Kannan, Advocate, SR.No. 98407 +1CC to Mr.S.M.Sanjay, Advocate, SR.No. 78212 H.C.P.(MD) No.1307 of 2017 12.09.2017

¶28

sj SDS/SKN RSK/SAR 2/20.09.2017/2P/7C

¶29

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

Vinoth Kumar, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinoth Kumar, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thiraviyapandi Vs N. Anbukrishnan

Palani Vs the Inspector of Police

Syed Abdul Rahman Vs the Inspector of Police

Ponnambalam @ Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Sangeetha Vs the Superintend of Police

A.Queence Mary Vs the Superintendent of Police