Disposed

Mohamed Rafi Ayub v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC4 Apr 2019HCP/635/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition seeking the release of a missing woman, the High Court of Madras disposed of the matter after the detenue was produced and voluntarily joined her parents. The court directed police to file a status report on the registered missing persons case.

What did the court decide?

Detenue set at liberty to take call for future; 2nd respondent directed to file status report on Cr.No.106 of 2019.

Mohamed Rafi Ayub Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED:04.04.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
H.C.PNo.635 of 2019
Mohamed Rafi Ayub .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police
Vellore District, Vellore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Nemili Police Station,
Vellore District. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents herein to secure the body of the detenue by name Roja K aged about 25 years, W/o.Mohamed Rafi Ayub and produce her before this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Kumar D.R For Respondents : Mr.V.Sarathadevi Government Advocate

¶9

ORDER

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner claims to the husband of the detenue namely,

¶12

K.Roja aged about 24 years (D.O.B.02.04.1994) and according to him,

¶13

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶14

¶15

both were residing together at No.15/1, Ammanayanar Koil Street, Panapakkam, Vellore and in connection with the business, he went out of his residence at 12.30 pm on 06.03.2019 and when he returned back, he did not find the detenue. In this regard, the petitioner has lodged a complaint on the file of the 2^nd respondent, based on which a case in Cr.No.106 of 2019 was registered on 06.03.2019 for ''Women Missing''. The petitioner, being very much concerned about the safety and well being of the detenue, came forward to file this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶16

When this Habeas Corpus Petition was listed for hearing on 26.03.2019, the learned counsel for the petitioner undertook to file an additional affidavit with supporting documents as to the proof of marriage between the petitioner and the detenue and therefore, it was adjourned to 02.04.2019 and on that day, once again, the learned counsel

¶17

for the petitioner prays for some accommodation to produce the particulars, sought for by this Court.

¶18

Today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a request

¶19

to list this Habeas Corpus petition for the reason that the detenue has

¶20

been traced and accordingly, the matter is listed today.

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

¶23

The detenue is produced before this Court and on enquiry, she

¶24

would state that she was born on 02.04.2019 and she is qualified in B.A., English Literature and the petitioner is running a Chicken Stall and lured by his sweet words, she went with him. However, he did not marry her

¶25

and despite that they had relationship and out of which, she conceived and aborted twice without her consent. She would further state that she belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and despite her request and insistence, the petitioner had failed to marry her and she has also been subjected to verbal and physical abuse and unable to bear with the same,

¶26

left his company and joined with her parents.

¶27

The mother of the detenue, who is present before this Court, is

¶28

also enquired. She would state that her husband is retired from CISF and

¶29

at present, he is employed as a Security Staff in a private Company and

¶30

now, her daughter has joined with her and she would take care of safety

¶31

and well being of her daughter.

¶32

Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶33

appearing for the State would submit that the investigation in respect of

¶34

the case registered at the instance of the petitioner would be conducted in

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶36

¶37

a fair and impartial manner and if the detenue lodges any complaint against the petitioner as to the alleged misconduct, immediate cognizance will be taken under the relevant provisions of the Acts and further action would be taken.

¶38

In the light of the fact that the detenue being a major, and

¶39

willing to join with the company of her mother and at present she is also

¶40

under the care and custody of the mother, she is set at liberty to take a

¶41

call for her future.

¶42

The Habeas Corpus petition is disposed of with the above observation. However, the 2^nd respondent is directed to file a Status

¶43

Report as to the progress being shown in respect of the case in Cr.No.106 of 2019, registered by the Inspector of Police, Nemili Police Station,

¶44

Vellore District.

¶45

Call on 29.04.2019 . Status Report of the 2^nd respondent by then.

¶46

(M.S.N.J.,) (M.N.K.,J.) 04.04.2019

¶47

Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

¶48

¶49

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶50

¶51

¶52

1.The Superintendent of Police Vellore District, Vellore.

¶53

2.The Inspector of Police, Nemili Police Station, Vellore District.

¶54

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

¶55

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶56

¶57

M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶58

¶59

H.C.PNo.635 of 2019
04.04.2019

¶60

http://www.judis.nic.in

Mohamed Rafi Ayub v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Rafi Ayub 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

Mohanraj @ Mohan Vs the State Rep by Its

P.R.Shyju Vs the Commissioner of Police

Princess Ntombifuth Vs the State Rep by Its

Sheik Dawood @ Dawood, Vs State Rep. by

Velu Vs the State Rep by Its

Ganga@Gangathar@ Gangathanran Vs the State of Tamil Nadu