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.

V.Suresh Vs The Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
V.Suresh Vs The Commissioner of PoliceV.Suresh v. The Commissioner of Police

Dismissed¶33

V.Suresh v. The Commissioner of Police

Habeas Corpus – Article 226

Madras HC26 Feb 2026HCP/352/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, H.C.P.No.352 of 2026 (decided 26.02.2026; order by P.VELMURUGAN, J., bench incl. M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.): habeas corpus petition under Article 226 by father V.Suresh for production of his 22-year-old daughter Haripriya, missing from 01.02.2026 (complaint Cr.No.32 of 2026). Police submitted a video in which the detenue stated she voluntarily left home owing to parental torture and eloped with one Surendar. Held: video revealed no illegal detention; case of elopement; Article 226 power not exercised; petition dismissed. Relevant to: maintainability of habeas corpus where an adult is said to have left home voluntarily; evidentiary use of video statement; elopement versus illegal detention.

What did the court decide?

On perusing the video footage, the Court found that there is no illegal detention of the detenue; the situation is one of elopement.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's daughter Haripriya, aged about 22 years, is under illegal detention such that a Writ of Habeas Corpus should issue under Article 226 directing the respondents to produce her before the Court.

Court's answer

On perusing the video footage, the Court found that there is no illegal detention of the detenue; the situation is one of elopement.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the absence of illegal detention, the Court was not inclined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus – Article 226 – Father (V.Suresh) sought production of his daughter Haripriya (aged about 22), missing from home from 01.02.2026; family complaint registered as Cr.No.32 of 2026 with no follow-up. Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenue had a love affair with one Surendar, eloped with him, and sent video footage to the police station stating she voluntarily left home as she could not bear the torture by her parents and was not illegally detained by anyone. Perusing the video, the Court found there was no illegal detention and that it was a case of elopement; declining to exercise power under Article 226, it dismissed the petition. Order by P.VELMURUGAN, J.; bench P.VELMURUGAN and M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ.; dated 26.02.2026.

A

H.C.P.No.352 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.02.2026

Coram:

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

H.C.P.No.352 of 2026

V.Suresh

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner of Police, Salem, Salem District.

The Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station, Salem City.

... 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 respondents to produce the petitioner’s daughter Haripriya aged about 22 years before this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kalyanasundaram

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

1 / 4

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

H.C.P.No.352 of 2026

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 daughter Haripriya aged about 22 years before this Court.

2 According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is father of the

deteue Haripriya aged about 22 years and she was acquainted with one Surendar. On 01.02.2026 onward she was missing from home and despite immediate search by family, she could not be traced. Hence they preferred complaint, which was registered in Cr.No.32 of 2026 and no steps have been taken to secure the petitioner’s daughter. Hence the present petition.

3 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents would submit that

the detenue, aged about 22 years, is the daughter of the petitioner. She had love affair with one Surendar and she eloped with him and she also sent video footage to the Police Station, in which, she has stated that she only voluntarily left the home, since she could not bear the torture made by the parents and she has not been illegally detained by anyone.

2 / 4

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

H.C.P.No.352 of 2026

4 This Court perused the video, which reveal that there is no illegal detention

of the detenue and it is the case of elopement. Under these circumstances, this Court is

not inclined to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5 Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed.

[PVJ] [MJRJ]

26.02.2026

cgi

To

The Commissioner of Police, Salem, Salem District.

The Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station, Salem City.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

3 / 4

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

H.C.P.No.352 of 2026

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

cgi

H.C.P.No.352 of 2026

26.02.2026

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 daughter Haripriya, aged about 22 years, is under illegal detention such that a Writ of Habeas Corpus should issue under Article 226 directing the respondents to produce her before the Court.¶22
The court held
On perusing the video footage, the Court found that there is no illegal detention of the detenue; the situation is one of elopement.ratio¶30

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶13

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner's daughter Haripriya (aged about 22) went missing from home from 01.02.2026; despite immediate search by the family she could not be traced.¶24
Prior proceeding
The family preferred a complaint, registered as Cr.No.32 of 2026; no steps were taken to secure the petitioner's daughter, prompting the present habeas corpus petition.¶24

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
V.Suresh¶7
Mr.R.Kalyanasundaram
respondent
The Commissioner of Police, Salem, Salem District¶10
Mr.A.Damodaran, Mr.M.Karthikeyan
respondent
The Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station, Salem City¶11
Mr.A.Damodaran, Mr.M.Karthikeyan

Coram

AI extract

P.VELMURUGANauthor¶20
M.JOTHIRAMANmember¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 26 Feb 2026 · February
Registered: 23 Feb 2026
Case no.: HCP/352/2026
CNR: HCMA010411332026
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: P. Velmurugan M.jothiraman
Disposal: DISMISSED
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

Kandasamy Vs State By The Inspector of Police
25 Feb 2026
The State Rep by Vs Maran @ Senguttavan @ Manivannan @ Mullaivalavan @ Kannaiyan
25 Feb 2026
Rani Vs the State Rep by
25 Feb 2026
Anbazhagan Vs the State Represented by
26 Feb 2026
Natarajan Vs State by
26 Feb 2026
Madhesh @ Raja Vs State Rep by
26 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

V.Suresh v. The Commissioner of Police, HCP/352/2026 (MAD), decided on 26 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

Petitioner's daughter Haripriya (aged about 22) went missing from home from 01.02.2026; despite immediate search by the family she could not be traced.
The family preferred a complaint, registered as Cr.No.32 of 2026; no steps were taken to secure the petitioner's daughter, prompting the present habeas corpus petition.

View full history

Bench / Coram

P.VELMURUGAN and M.JOTHIRAMAN

Parties & counsel