Disposed

Tamilarasan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC14 Oct 2024HCP(MD)/1150/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A habeas corpus petition was filed by a father seeking the production of his 17-year-old daughter, allegedly abducted by a third respondent. The police traced and secured the minor in Maharashtra-Gujarat border areas and produced her before the court before this order was made.

What did the court decide?

The petition is closed as the detenue was produced and handed over to her parents; no further order is required.

Tamilarasan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P(MD)No.1150 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.1150 of 2024

Tamilarasan,

... Petitioner

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Trichy.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Puthanatham Police Station, Trichy.

¶12

Jeyakumar

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to produce the body or person of a detenue namely Gomathi D/o Tamilarasan aged about 17 years herein before this Court and handover her custody to the petitioner.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasundarvijayraj

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar

¶17

Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

1/6

¶20

H.C.P(MD)No.1150 of 2024

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father seeking production of his minor daughter, aged about 17 years, who according to him was found missing on 23.08.2024 and on enquiry, he suspected that his daughter had been kidnapped by the 3^rd respondent, Jeyakumar, S/o.Rengan, resident of Vadakiur, Karuthakodangipatti, Karuppur Village, Trichy.

¶23

2.This Court had directed the first and second respondents, the Superintendent of Police, Trichy and the Inspector of Police, Puthanatham Police Station to secure the minor daughter of the petitioner.

¶24

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that even

¶25

on an earlier occasion, the daughter of the petitioner had moved away with the third respondent and owing to advise from the villagers she returned back. He further stated that there is every possibility that she would again have gone away with the 3^rd respondent.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

2/6

¶28

H.C.P(MD)No.1150 of 2024

¶29

4.In this connection, acting under the direct supervision of

¶30

the first respondent, the Vayampatti Circle Inspector, Mr. N.Muthusamy, had taken special steps to secure the daughter of the petitioner. He has been assisted by Mr.A.Shanmugasundaram, Police Constable No.1192, Vayampatti Police Station, Mr.C.Prabhu, Police Constable No.1702, Puthanatham Police Station, Ms.A.Jancirani, Women Police Constable No.1182, Puthanatham Police Station and Ms.M.Kaliyammal, Women Police Constable No.1973, Vayampatti Police Station and they had traced the young daughter of the petitioner at Nandhurbar District, which is on the border of Maharashtra - Gujarat (Surat District). The team had gone all the way from Trichy to that place.

¶31

5.They were able to secure the young daughter of the petitioner and produced her before this Court. This Court places its very deep appreciation for the noble service rendered by the aforementioned Officers.

¶32

6.After enquiring her, we had advised her to go with her

¶33

parents. We also advised the parents to take care of their daughter.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

3/6

¶36

H.C.P(MD)No.1150 of 2024

¶37

7.Rescuing the minor daughter of the petitioner was possible

¶38

only owing to the strenuous efforts taken by Mr.N.Muthusamy, Vayampatti Circle Inspector assisted by the aforementioned four personnels, Mr.A.Shanmugasundaram, Police Constable No.1192, Vayampatti Police Station, Mr.C.Prabhu, Police Constable No.1702, Puthanatham Police Station, Ms.A.Jancirani, Women Police Constable No.1182, Puthanatham Police Station and Ms.M.Kaliyammal, Women Police Constable No.1973, Vayampatti Police Station, who acted under the direct supervision of Superintendent of Police, Trichy. We would certainly appreciate, if our commendation is extended in the Service Registers of the aforementioned officials.

¶39

8.Since the detenue had been produced and handed over to

¶40

her parents, no further order is required. This Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.

¶41

(C.V.K., J.) (R.P, J.) 14.10.2024

¶42

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No PNM

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

4/6

¶45

H.C.P(MD)No.1150 of 2024

¶46

¶47

1.The Director General of Police, Chennai.

¶48

2.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Trichy.

¶49

The Inspector of Police, Puthanatham Police Station, Trichy.

¶50

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

5/6

¶53

H.C.P(MD)No.1150 of 2024

¶54

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. and R.POORNIMA, J.

¶55

PNM

¶56

ORDER MADE IN H.C.P.(MD) No.1150 of 2024

¶57

14.10.2024

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

6/6

Tamilarasan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilarasan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

Nilofar Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government

N.Durga Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Muniyasamy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

The Principal Accountant Vs Ms.Vasantha

Bala Vs Abdul Rahman

Kaliyammal Vs The Principal Secretary to Government