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.

Paramasivam Vs The State rep by The… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
Paramasivam Vs The State rep by The Superintendent oParamasivam v. The State rep by The Superintendent of Police

Disposed¶33

Paramasivam v. The State rep by The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC18 Feb 2026HCP/303/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

habeas corpus; minor girl; detenue; Deepika aged about 17 years; father Paramasivam; Cuddalore District; Sethiyathope Police Station; 'Girl Missing'; Crime No.28 of 2026 dated 29.01.2026; production within 48 hours; detenue consented to return to parents and pursue studies; kidnapping allegation against 3rd respondent Surya; Sections 87 and 127(4) of BNS; Sections 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act; FIR; investigation under progress; petition closed; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Madras High Court; P. Velmurugan J; M. Jothiraman J.

What did the court decide?

Detenue Deepika (aged about 17 years) was secured and produced before the Court; on her agreeing to go with her parents and pursue her studies, the Habeas Corpus Petition was closed. The FIR against the 3rd respondent (Sections 87 and 127(4) BNS; Sections 5(l) and 6 POCSO Act) continues, investigation under progress.

Why is it important?

In compliance with the Court's direction of 17.02.2026, the respondents/Police secured the detenue and produced her before this Court. ¶25

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Detenue Deepika (aged about 17 years) was secured and produced before the Court; on her agreeing to go with her parents and pursue her studies, the Habeas Corpus Petition was closed. The FIR against the 3rd respondent (Sections 87 and 127(4) BNS; Sections 5(l) and 6 POCSO Act) continues, investigation under progress.

Issue for consideration

Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents should produce the petitioner's minor daughter Deepika, aged about 17 years, before the Court and hand her over to the petitioner.

Court's answer

In compliance with the Court's direction of 17.02.2026, the respondents/Police secured the detenue and produced her before this Court.

Ratio / Principle

On the Court's enquiry, the detenue agreed to go with her parents and to pursue her studies.

Key takeaways

Since the detenue had been produced and agreed to go with her parents, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P. Velmurugan and M. Jothiraman JJ.; order by P. Velmurugan J.), H.C.P.No.303 of 2026, decided 18.02.2026. Father's habeas corpus petition under Article 226 seeking production of his minor daughter Deepika, aged about 17 years. On his complaint, a 'Girl Missing' case (Crime No.28 of 2026) was registered on 29.01.2026 at Sethiyathope Police Station, Cuddalore District; alleging no effective police step, he approached the Court. On 17.02.2026 the Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to secure and produce the detenue within 48 hours; she was produced on 18.02.2026. The Additional Public Prosecutor reported that the 3rd respondent, Surya, had kidnapped the detenue and that an FIR stood registered against him under Sections 87 and 127(4) of BNS and Sections 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act, with investigation under progress. On enquiry, the detenue agreed to go with her parents and pursue her studies; the Court accordingly closed the habeas corpus petition.

A

H.C.P.No.303 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

H.C.P.No.303 of 2026

Paramasivam

... Petitioner

Versus

The State rep. by The Superintendent of Police O/o Superintendent of Police Cuddalore District

The Inspector of Police Sethiyathope Police Station Cuddalore District

Surya ...Respondents

Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to produce the petitioner’s minor daughter namely Deepika who is aged about 17 years before this Court and handover to the petitioner.

1

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

H.C.P.No.303 of 2026

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy For R1 and R2 : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Karthikeyan

O R D E R

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

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to produce the petitioner’s minor daughter namely Deepika who is aged about 17 years, before this Court and handover to the petitioner.

The petitioner is the father of the detenue aged about 17 years. Based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.28 of 2026 was registered under ‘Girl Missing’ on 29.01.2026. Since no effective step was taken by the respondents/Police to secure the detenue, the present petition has been filed.

When the matter came up before this Court yesterday (17.02.2026), this Court had directed the respondents 1 and 2 to secure the detenue and produce before this Court within 48 hours.

Today, the respondents/Police secured the detenue and produced her before this Court.

2

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

H.C.P.No.303 of 2026

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondents/Police submitted that the 3^rd respondent had kidnapped the detenue. Hence, the FIR has been registered against the 3^rd respondent for the offences under Sections 87 and 127(4) of BNS and Sections 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act and that the investigation is under progress.

This Court enquired the detenue and she agreed to go with her

parents and to pursue her studies.

In view of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.

[P.V.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]

18.02.2026

Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No ksa-2

3

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

H.C.P.No.303 of 2026

To

The Superintendent of Police O/o Superintendent of Police Cuddalore District

The Inspector of Police Sethiyathope Police Station Cuddalore District

The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

4

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

H.C.P.No.303 of 2026

P.VELMURUGAN, J., AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,

ksa-2

H.C.P.No.303 of 2026

18.02.2026

5

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents should produce the petitioner's minor daughter Deepika, aged about 17 years, before the Court and hand her over to the petitioner.¶22
The court held
In compliance with the Court's direction of 17.02.2026, the respondents/Police secured the detenue and produced her before this Court.ratio¶25

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶15
BNS87; 127(4)¶30
POCSO Act5(l); 6¶30

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
On the petitioner's complaint, a case in Crime No.28 of 2026 was registered under 'Girl Missing' on 29.01.2026 regarding his 17-year-old daughter.¶23
Prior proceeding
Alleged ineffective action by respondents/Police to secure the detenue prompted the habeas corpus petition.¶23
Prior proceeding
On 17.02.2026 the Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to secure the detenue and produce her before the Court within 48 hours.¶24
Prior proceeding
On 18.02.2026 the respondents/Police secured the detenue and produced her before the Court.¶25
Prior proceeding
The Additional Public Prosecutor reported that the 3rd respondent had kidnapped the detenue; FIR registered against the 3rd respondent under Sections 87 and 127(4) of BNS and Sections 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act, investigation under progress.¶30

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Paramasivam¶9
R.Thirumoorthy
respondent
The State rep. by The Superintendent of Police O/o Superintendent of Police Cuddalore District¶12
A.Damodaran, M.Karthikeyan
respondent
The Inspector of Police Sethiyathope Police Station Cuddalore District¶13
A.Damodaran, M.Karthikeyan
respondent
Surya¶14

Coram

AI extract

P. Velmuruganauthor¶21
M. Jothiramanmember¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 18 Feb 2026 · February
Registered: 13 Feb 2026
Case no.: HCP/303/2026
CNR: HCMA010349572026
Topic: Child Sexual Offences (POCSO)
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

Rajathi Vs The State Represented by its
17 Feb 2026
Anitha Devi Vs the Inspector of Police
17 Feb 2026
C. Karthikeyan Vs The Superintendent of Police
17 Feb 2026
S.Sivaperumal Vs The Commissioner of Police
18 Feb 2026
Sethu Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police
18 Feb 2026
Gayathri Devi Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its the Commissioner of Police
18 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

Paramasivam v. The State rep by The Superintendent of Police, HCP/303/2026 (MAD), decided on 18 February 2026.

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

Statutes3

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
BNS87; 127(4)
POCSO Act5(l); 6

View all statutes

Procedural history5

On the petitioner's complaint, a case in Crime No.28 of 2026 was registered under 'Girl Missing' on 29.01.2026 regarding his 17-year-old daughter.
Alleged ineffective action by respondents/Police to secure the detenue prompted the habeas corpus petition.

View full history

Bench / Coram

P. Velmurugan and M. Jothiraman

Parties & counsel