Tamilarasi Vs The State of Tamilnadu

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus , directing the Respondents to produce the

¶18

Page 1 of 7

¶19

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

¶20

HCP(MD)Nos. 325 & 326 of 2025

¶21

body or person of the detenu namely Kanagaraj S/o. Karuppasamy aged about 24 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶22

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Vishnuvardhan

¶23

For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶24

H.C.P.(MD)No. 326 of 2025

¶25

Solaiyappan .. Petitioner /Father of

¶26

Detenue Vs.

¶27

State of Tamil Nadu,

¶28

The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

¶29

The Inspector of Police, O/o. Ilayangudi Police Station, Sivagangai District. .. Respondents

¶30

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus , directing the Respondents to produce body or person of the petitioner's son namely Muthuselvam aged about 30 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶31

Page 2 of 7

¶32

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

¶33

HCP(MD)Nos. 325 & 326 of 2025

¶34

For Petitioner :Mr.J.Suthakar For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶35

COMMON ORDER

¶36

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND

¶37

R.POORNIMA , J.

¶38

These two Habeas Corpus Petitions are filed alleging that on behalf of the accused in Crime No34 of 2025 on the file of the Ilayankudi police station, on the premise that in the above case they were granted bail on condition that they shall report the police daily, accordingly, they were scrupulously complying the condition. While so, one of the accused by name, Muthuselvam was taken away by the uniformed persons when he was going to the Ilayandkudi Police station for complying with the order, that was witnessed by the other accused Muthuraj. The next day, the said Muthuraj was also taken away by the Police persons, but let out. Yet another co-accused in the said case by name Kanagaraj, was taken away by the uniformed persons along with Muthuselvam and they were whereabouts not known, hence these Habeas Corpus petitions are filed for production of body of Muthu Selvam and Kanagaraj.

¶39

Page 3 of 7

¶40

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

¶41

HCP(MD)Nos. 325 & 326 of 2025

¶42

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records.

¶43

The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents has filed a detailed counter stating that both the Muthu Selvam and Kanagaraj were named accused in Crime No.42 of 2025 registered by the Ramanathapuram Town Police station, on the complaint given by one Muniasamy S/o.Perumal, through online on 24.01.2025. They were remanded before the Judicial Magistrate and presently they are under judicial custody in Sub-Jail, Ramanathapuram. They intricately denied that these detenus were under illegal custody by the police.

¶44

This Court on recording the fact that the detenus, Muthu Selvam and Kanagaraj and whose behalf H.C.P(MD)Nos.324 & 326 of 2025 alleging that they are detained illegally and whereabouts not known is factually not correct and their detention is by way of Judicial remand in connection in Crime No.42 of 2025 on the file of the Ramanathapuram Town P.S.

¶45

Page 4 of 7

¶46

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

¶47

HCP(MD)Nos. 325 & 326 of 2025

¶48

According to the facts and circumstances, if at all there is

¶49

any ground for these two persons to seek bail, it is open to them to agitate the cause before the concerned Court seeking bail and Habeas Corpus Petition is not remedy for the petitioners,

¶50