Dismissed

Rahamedunisha v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC22 Jul 2021HCP/1111/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a habeas corpus petition seeking to produce an adult detenu from alleged private custody. The court found no material proving illegal custody as the detenu was an adult who left due to financial problems, but directed police to monitor the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Habeas corpus petition closed; direction to police to monitor investigation and produce detenu before magistrate if secured.

Rahamedunisha Vs the Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.1111 of 2021

¶6

Rahamedunisha, W/o.Anwarsherif, No.4, Periyasamy Village, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Superintendent of Police, District Superintendent Office, Villupuram.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶11

3.Rajamohamed

¶12

4.K.Pichai Mohamed .. Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the detenu viz., Faruak.A, aged about 38 years, son of Anvarshrief, before this Court from the illegal custody of the third and fourth respondents and set him at liberty.

¶14

ORDER [Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶15

This habeas corpus petition has been filed seeking to produce the detenu viz., Faruak.A, aged about 38 years, son of

¶16

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

¶17

Anvarshrief, before this Court from the illegal custody of the third and fourth respondents and set him at liberty.

¶18

It is the case of the petitioner that her son Faruak, aged about 38 years, went missing from 19.10.2020 and that the police are not taking effective steps to secure him.

¶19

It is seen that on a complaint given by Ayisha Banu, wife of the detenu Faruak, a case in Villupuram Police Station Crime No.2449 of 2020 was registered on 31.10.2020 for 'man missing' and that the police have also circulated pamphlets bearing the photograph of Faruak in and around that area. In the complaint given by Ayisha Banu, she has stated that on account of heavy loss in business, her husband has left a letter and has gone missing. However, the petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Faruak, has suspected the involvement of the third and fourth respondents.

¶20

Be that as it may, there is no material to show that the detenu Faruak is in the illegal custody of the third and fourth respondents. That apart, he is also not a minor and he had left the house on account of some financial problems.

¶21

Hence, this habeas corpus petition stands closed with a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam Sub-Division, to monitor the investigation in Villupuram Police Station Crime No.2449 of 2020 and keep the petitioner informed of the developments, if any. As and when the detenu Faruak, aged about 38 years, is secured, he shall be produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tindivanam, under intimation to the petitioner. On such production, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders with regard to custody in accordance with law.

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

nsd

¶24

¶25

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam.

¶26

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam Sub-Division.

¶27

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

¶28

3.The Superintendent of Police, District Superintendent Office, Villupuram.

¶29

4.The Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶30

5.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104.

¶31

H.C.P.No.1111 of 2021

¶32

UM (CO) B.VC(18/08/2021)

¶33

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

Rahamedunisha v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahamedunisha 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

M.Saratha Vs the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

N.Kalaivani Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

Ramachandiran Vs the Secretary to Govt

S. Balan Vs the District Superintendent of Police

Govindaraj Vs State by

Renganthan, M/30 Vs State Rep by