Dismissed

Mubeen v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Madras HC16 Nov 2018HCP/2621/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 regarding missing husband allegedly held in illegal custody, the Court dismissed the petition upon accepting that the petitioner's husband was formally arrested and remanded to judicial custody for robbery offences.

What did the court decide?

Habeas corpus petition dismissed with notice of illegal custody dismissed as the detenue has been remanded to judicial custody.

Mubeen Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.11.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

H.C.P.No.2621 of 2018

¶6

I.Mubeen .. Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Home Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police, S-1 Police Station, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶10

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 1 st and 2 nd respondents to produce the detenue Mr.A.Imras from the illegal custody of the 2 nd respondent herein and set him at liberty.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Selvarajan

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶13

(Order of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.)

¶14

The petitioner's husband Mr.A.Imras is allegedly taken by the police on 12.11.2018 and his whereabouts are not known. Therefore, the petitioner sent a complaint on 12.11.2018 to the 2nd respondent. Since no action has been taken by the police, the petitioner has come before this Court by way of this petition.

¶15

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

¶16

2. Heard, Mr.P.V.Selvarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner's husband has been arrested for the offences under Sections 392 IPC, 120(B), 395 r/w 34 IPC and Crime No.1821/18, regarding robbery of Rs.1,00,00,000/- has been registered against him. He was arrested on 14.11.2018 and remanded to judicial custody.

¶18

In view of the arrest and remand of the petitioner's
husband to judicial custody, the question of the petitioner's
husband being in illegal custody does not arise. Hence this
petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sai
To
1.The Home Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Inspector of Police,
S-1 Police Station,
St. Thomas Mount,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+2cc to Mr.P.V.Selvarajan, Advocate sr.78273
H.C.P.No.2621 of 2018
ss[co]
srg 10/12/2018

¶19

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

Mubeen v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubeen v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinnaraj Vs M.P. Murugesan

S.Palani Vs K.Senthamarai Kannan(Deceased)

N.R. Srinivasan Vs M/S. Sagar Investments

Ekambaram Vs the Superintending Engineer

Rangnatha Reddy (Died) Vs the Superintending Engineer

M.Bhoopathy Vs the Superintending Engineer