Dismissed

S. Muruga Lakshmi v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC24 Aug 2018HCP(MD)/1087/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of Habeas Corpus for her 17-year-old son, a male detainee who lost his way while working. The Additional Public Prosecutor represented that the detenu had escaped while at a work site. The court, noting the matter was pending over a year, closed the petition but directed the respondents to secure the detenu immediately.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; respondents directed to secure the detenu forthwith.

S. Muruga Lakshmi Vs the Superintendent of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.08.2018 CORAM:

¶3

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

¶4

H.C.P.(MD)No.1087 of 2017

¶5

S.Murugalakshmi ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

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

¶8

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Peraiyur Sub Division, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶9

3.The Inspector of Police, T.Kalluppatti Police Station, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: The petition 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 petitioners son detenue Saravanakumar (aged 17 years) S/o.Seenivasan before this Court and handover the custody to the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.K.Dinesh Babu, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.)

¶15

When the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

2.The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu was not traceable and a case was registered in Crime No.249 of 2016. As the detenu has not been secured, the present petition is filed. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that the detenu has left the house. On information, it is represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor that the detenu was working at Tiruchendur, in a borewell company and the petitioner and her lawyer went to see him and on coming know of the same, the detenu has escaped from the place. Efforts are being taken to secure him.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.When the matter is pending for more than a year and the complaint is of the year 2016, we are not inclined to keeping the petition pending. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus petition stands

¶18

¶19

closed. However, the respondents are directed to secure the detenu forthwith.

¶20

Sd/ Assistant Registrar(Writs) /True copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶22

¶23

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Peraiyur Sub Division, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶24

3.The Inspector of Police, T.Kalluppatti Police Station, Madurai District.

¶25

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶26

H.C.P.(MD)No.1087 of 2017 24.08.2018

¶27

nbj KK/RP/SAR-2/01.10.2018/2P-5C

¶28

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

S. Muruga Lakshmi v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Muruga Lakshmi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Muthuvel, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Thiruvalluvar Vs the Inspector of Police

Jahir Usain Vs the Superintendent of Police

Rameshkumar, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Ms. Mariya Meenambikai Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.S.Mayilsamy Vs the Election Commissioner