Petitioner, wife of a detenu, filed a writ petition for habeas corpus to quash the detention order. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous after respondents represented the detention order was revoked.
Petition dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.07.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
H.C.P.No.20 of 2020
J.Priya, 24 years,
W/o. Jothibasu,
No.1, 5 th Cross Street,
C.L.C.Line, Chrompettai,
Chennai – 600 044. .. Petitioner / Detenu wife
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort.St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Grater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai. .. Respondents
PRAYER: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in No.867/BCDFGISSSV/2019, dated 14.12.2019 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu, namely Jothibasu, S/o.Munivel, aged about 28 years, now he is confined in Central Prison, Puzal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan For Respondents: Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN,J.)
The matter is heard through video-conferencing.
2.This petition has been filed by the Wife of the detenu viz., Jothibasu, aged about 28 years, challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent against the detenu in
proceedings Memo No.867/BCDFGISSSV/2019, dated 14.12.2019.
3.It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents that the Government has revoked the detention order passed by the second respondent against the detenu, who is the husband of the petitioner.
4.In view of the said representation, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.20 of 2020 RLD(CO) RMP(01/10/2020)
J. Priya
The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai
N. Kirubakaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
