Disposed

Manikandan v. the State Represented by

Madras HC6 Oct 2020HCP/189/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, husband of detenue Sathya, filed habeas corpus writ requiring respondents to produce and release her. Court closed petition but directed police to secure detenue and hand over to petitioner due to pending investigation and existence of an out-of-wedlock female child.

What did the court decide?

Police to endeavor to secure the detenue and hand over to the petitioner as and when secured.

Manikandan Vs the State Represented by — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

H.C.P.NO.189 OF 2020

¶6

Manikandan
S/o.Arunachalam ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State represented by
The Superintendent of Police,
District Superintendent of Police Office,
Coimbatore District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Vadavalli Police Station,
Vadavalli, Coimbatore District.
3. Vignesh ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a writ of habeas corpus to direct the 1 st and 2 nd
respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's wife namely
Sathya, aged about 23 years before this Court and set her at
liberty.

¶7

For Petitioner : M/s.A.K.Gopalan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar
Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]

¶8

The petitioner is the husband of the detenue namely, Sathya, aged about 23 years, has come forward with the present petition to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenue before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶9

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

¶10

Heard Mr.A.K.Gopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶11

As rightly submitted by the the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that it is a case of elopment and even in the complaint it is stated that the third respondent eloped petitioner's wife with charming words.

¶12

Such view of the matter, this petition stand closed. However, taking into consideration of the fact that the investigation is yet to be completed coupled with other situation that there is a female child born out of wedlock between the petitioner and the detenue, the second respondent police shall endeavour to secure the detenue and hand over to the petitioner as and when secured.

¶13

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vaan/ak
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
District Superintendent of Police Office,
Coimbatore District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Vadavalli Police Station,
Vadavalli, Coimbatore District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras.
H.C.P.No.189 of 2020
PA(CO)
CS/02/11/2020

¶14

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

Manikandan v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan v. the State Represented by

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

R.Karthika Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Kowsaliya Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Selvi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Kanageswari Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Sumathi Vs State Rep.by

Iswarya Vs the Secretary to the Government