Dismissed

Subha v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC20 Jan 2021HCP/48/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Subha seeking production of her mother, Bhagyalakshmi. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted police findings that the respondent sister did not keep Bhagyalakshmi under restraint, negating illegal custody. Consequently, no writ was issued.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy in the manner known to law.

Subha Vs the Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.01.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.SIVAGNANAM

H.C.P. No.48 of 2021

Subha

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police Department, Vepery, Chennai – 600 008.

¶10

2.The Inspector of police, Chitlapakkam Police Station, Chitlapakkam, Chennai – 600 064.

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce the body or person of Bhagyalakshmi, W/o.(late) Krishnan, aged about 72 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶12

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

¶13

This habeas corpus petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents herein to produce the body or person of Bhagyalakshmi, W/o.(late) Krishnan, aged about 72 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that her mother Bhagyalakshmi, aged about 72 years, is in the illegal custody of the third respondent, who is none other than the sister of the petitioner.

¶15

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

¶16

On instructions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the police went to the house of the third respondent and recorded the statements of the third respondent and Bhagyalakshmi and found out that Bhagyalakshmi was not kept under restraint by the third respondent.

¶17

In such view of the matter, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued as there is no illegal custody of the detenue as alleged by the petitioner.

¶18

In the result, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy in the manner known to law.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar (C.S.II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police Department, Vepery, Chennai – 600 008. 2.The Inspector of police, Chitlapakkam Police Station, Chitlapakkam, Chennai – 600 064. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Akm/12.2.21 /2p-4c/ H.C.P. No.48 of 2021 20.01.2021

¶20

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

Subha v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subha v. the Commissioner 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

Sathya Vs State Represented by

K.K.Ramesh Vs the Commissioner of Police

Nivetha Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Liyakath Ali Vs Deputy Director

Mohammed Riyaz Vs Deputy Director

B.Vagitha Vs State Rep.by