Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

B.Indhra Gandhi Vs The State Rep by, The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
B.Indhra Gandhi Vs The State Rep by, The SuperintendB.Indhra Gandhi v. The State Rep by, The Superintendent of P

Dismissed¶28

B.Indhra Gandhi v. The State Rep by, The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC23 Feb 2026HCP/2392/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, H.C.P.No.2392 of 2025, decided 23.02.2026 (Coram: P. Velmurugan & M. Jothiraman, JJ.; order by P. Velmurugan, J.). Wife (B. Indra Gandhi) filed habeas corpus petition under Article 226 for production of her husband Balasubramaniam, alleged to be illegally detained. Police status report: detenue voluntarily abandoned family, went to Kasi, Nepal, and was secured by the second respondent (Inspector of Police, Kangayam Police Station) from a monastery in Dindigul District. Detenue produced in Court and stated he was not illegally detained and left home voluntarily. No illegal detention found; petition stands closed. No precedent cited, no costs or amounts awarded.

What did the court decide?

The detenue was not under illegal detention: when produced before the Court and enquired, he informed the Court that he had not been illegally detained by anyone and had voluntarily left home.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's husband, Mr. Balasubramaniam S/o. Ayyavu (aged about 51 years), was under illegal detention by the respondents, warranting a writ of habeas corpus directing the second respondent to produce him before the Court and set him at liberty.

Court's answer

The detenue was not under illegal detention: when produced before the Court and enquired, he informed the Court that he had not been illegally detained by anyone and had voluntarily left home.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Additional Public Prosecutor's submissions, the status report, and the detenue's own statement to the Court that he was not illegally detained by anyone, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus — Petition by wife under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking production of her husband, Balasubramaniam S/o. Ayyavu (aged about 51 years), alleging illegal detention — Second respondent produced the detenue before the Court — On enquiry, the detenue stated he had not been illegally detained by anyone and had voluntarily left home — Additional Public Prosecutor's status report stated the detenue had voluntarily abandoned his family, gone to Kasi, Nepal, and had been secured by the police from a monastery in Dindigul District — No illegal detention made out — Habeas Corpus Petition closed.

A

H.C.P.No.2392 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.02.2026

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

H.C.P.No.2392 of 2025

B.Indra Gandhi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

The Inspector of Police, Kangayam Police Station, Kangayam Town, Tiruppur District. ... Respondents

Prayer: This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the second respondent to produce the petitioner’s husband Mr.Balasubramaniam S/o.Ayyavu aged about 51 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

1 / 4

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

H.C.P.No.2392 of 2025

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Stalin

For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.M.Karthikeyan *******

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to produce the petitioner’s husband Mr.Balasubramaniam, S/o.Ayyavu, aged about 51 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, filing the status report, would submit that the petitioner is wife of the detenue and the detenue voluntarily abandoned his family and went to Kasi, Nepal and the second respondent had secured him from one Monastery situated at Dindigul District. Hence there is no illegal detention as reported by the petitioner.

3 The second respondent produced the detenue before this Court and when we enquired him, he informed that he has not been illegally detained by anyone and he only voluntarily left the home.

2 / 4

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

H.C.P.No.2392 of 2025

4 In view of the above submissions made by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the status report and also the detenue reported this Court that he has not

been illegally detained by anyone, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed.

[PVJ] [MJRJ] 23.02.2026

cgi

To

The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

The Inspector of Police, Kangayam Police Station, Kangayam Town, Tiruppur District.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

3 / 4

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

H.C.P.No.2392 of 2025

P.VELMURUGAN. J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

cgi

H.C.P.No.2392 of 2025

23.02.2026

4 / 4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner's husband, Mr. Balasubramaniam S/o. Ayyavu (aged about 51 years), was under illegal detention by the respondents, warranting a writ of habeas corpus directing the second respondent to produce him before the Court and set him at liberty.¶12
The court held
The detenue was not under illegal detention: when produced before the Court and enquired, he informed the Court that he had not been illegally detained by anyone and had voluntarily left home.ratio¶22

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶12

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed a status report stating that the detenue had voluntarily abandoned his family and gone to Kasi, Nepal, and that the second respondent had secured him from a monastery in Dindigul District; no illegal detention reported.¶21
Prior proceeding
The second respondent produced the detenue before the Court; on enquiry by the Bench, the detenue stated he had not been illegally detained by anyone and had voluntarily left home.¶22

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
B.Indra Gandhi¶7
N. Stalin
respondent
The State represented by The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District¶10
A. Damodaran, M. Karthikeyan
respondent
The Inspector of Police, Kangayam Police Station, Kangayam Town, Tiruppur District.¶11
A. Damodaran, M. Karthikeyan

Coram

AI extract

P. Velmuruganauthor¶19
M. Jothiramanmember¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 23 Feb 2026 · February
Registered: 19 Nov 2025
Case no.: HCP/2392/2025
CNR: HCMA012371972025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: P. Velmurugan M.jothiraman
Disposal: CLOSED
Case type: H.C.P.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from P. Velmurugan M.jothiraman

Shankar Vs the Inspector of Police
20 Feb 2026
Sai Yogi Nidhi Limited Vs R. Srinivasan and 2 others
20 Feb 2026
C.Sathish, Vs Thiru. G.Prakash, Ias., and 3 others
20 Feb 2026
Narmatha Vs R.Rajendran
23 Feb 2026
Mary Rani Vs Chakravarthi
23 Feb 2026
Dillibabu Vs the State Rep by Its
23 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

B.Indhra Gandhi v. The State Rep by, The Superintendent of Police, HCP/2392/2025 (MAD), decided on 23 February 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed a status report stating that the detenue had voluntarily abandoned his family and gone to Kasi, Nepal, and that the second respondent had secured him from a monastery in Dindigul District; no illegal detention reported.
The second respondent produced the detenue before the Court; on enquiry by the Bench, the detenue stated he had not been illegally detained by anyone and had voluntarily left home.

View full history

Bench / Coram

P. Velmurugan and M. Jothiraman

Parties & counsel