Petitioner sought writ of Habeas Corpus for son. Court found son voluntarily left to marry admitted respondent. Petition closed as no illegal detention.
Habeas Corpus Petition closed; no relief granted.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.03.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
H.C.P.[MD].No.158 of 2017
Manoharan : Petitioner
Vs.
3.The Inspector of Police, Natchiyarkovil Police Station, Thanjavur District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur District.
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the body or person of the detenu, namely, Rajavel, S/o.Manoharan, aged about 20 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandakumar For Respondents 1to4 : Mr.T.Mohan Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[ Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to
2
produce the body or person of the detenu, namely, Rajavel, S/o.Manoharan, aged about 20 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.
about 20 years. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the respondents police, submitted that the son of the petitioner/detenu had married the sixth respondent herein and they were brought to Natchiyarkovil Police Station and the petitioner and his wife met their son and the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent is also a major, which is admitted by the petitioner. In such circumstances, we find that there is no illegal detention of the detenu, but, it appears that the detenu had voluntarily left the petitioner to marry the sixth respondent.
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
+1 cc to Mr.N.Anandakumar , Advocate in SR.No. 16791 NB AE/JC/04.04.2017/2P/7C
ORDER MADE IN H.C.P.[MD].No.158 of 2017 22.03.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the detenu was illegally detained under Article 226.
Whether the petition for Habeas Corpus survives adjudication.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manoharan
Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Tiruchirappalli
Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur
Rajendran
Swetha
T.S.Sivagnanam
P.Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
