Allowed

V.Koiyilan, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC6 Jun 2017HCP(MD)/785/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition regarding a missing person, the petitioner's father sought liberty for the detenu. The court directed the second respondent police to investigate and produce the detenu before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent police to investigate, trace the detenu's whereabouts, and produce him before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within two months.

V.Koiyilan, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.06.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

H.C.P.[MD].No.785 of 2017

¶7

V.Koiyilan : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Trichirappalli District, Trichy.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Somarasampettai Police Station, Trichirappalli District.

¶11

: Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu, namely, K.Vaisagan @ vinoth, aged about 31 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrakumar For Respondents : Mr.T.Mohan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ]

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶17

The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, who is aged about 31 years, stated to be missing since 09.05.2017. The complaint lodged by the petitioner, in this regard, before the second respondent police, has been registered as "Crime No.200 of 2017".

¶18

Considering the fact that the detenu is aged about 31 years, we direct the second respondent police to investigate the case, trace the whereabouts of the detenu and produce him before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Jurisdictional Magistrate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

¶20

The Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of on the above terms.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

The Superintendent of Police, Trichirappalli District, Trichy. 2. The Inspector of Police, Somarasampettai Police Station, Trichirappalli District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to M/S.A.Chandrakumar, Advocate SR.No. 59184

¶25

ORDER MADE IN H.C.P.[MD].No.785 of 2017 06.06.2017

¶26

¶27

JM/MMS/SAR 3/13.06.2017/2P/5C

¶28

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

V.Koiyilan, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Koiyilan, 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

The Branch Manager, Vs Nalirabanu

The Divisional Manager, Vs S.Palanisamy (Died)

Branch Manager Vs Chandra

M.Sharmila Banu Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Chinna Kannan Vs the District Collector

Krishnan, Vs the Superintendent of Police