Disposed

Boominathan v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC1 Apr 2026HCP(MD)/417/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Father sought habeas corpus for his 22-year-old daughter, reportedly an elopement case with a registered FIR. The Court directed the Inspector of Police to take all possible steps to secure the detenu and closed the habeas corpus petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent (Inspector of Police) to take all possible steps to secure the detenu; petition closed.

Boominathan Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

1 H.C.P.(MD)NO.417 OF 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶8

H.C.P.(MD)No.417 of 2026

¶9

Boominathan ... Petitioner / Father of detenu

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, O/o.the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli police station, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

Rajapandi ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the person or body of the petitioner's daughter by name Gayathri aged about 22 years before this Court.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

2 H.C.P.(MD)NO.417 OF 2026

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor. * * *

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶21

The petitioner is the father of the detenu. The detenu is an

¶22

young woman aged about 22 years. According to the second respondent, it appears to be a case of elopement. Be that as it may, based on the petitioner’s complaint, Crime No.124 of 2026 has been registered. We direct the second respondent to take all possible steps to secure the detenu. We need not keep this HCP pending. This habeas corpus petition is closed.

¶23

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (R.POORNIMA, J.)

¶24

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PMU

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

3 H.C.P.(MD)NO.417 OF 2026

¶28

To:

¶29

The Superintendent of Police, O/o.the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

¶30

The Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli police station, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

¶31

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

¶32

3/4

¶33

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

¶34

4 H.C.P.(MD)NO.417 OF 2026

¶35

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND

R.POORNIMA, J.

PMU

H.C.P.(MD)No.417 of 2026

¶40

01.04.2026

¶41

4/4

¶42

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

Boominathan v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boominathan v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

Thavamani T Vs the District Collector

K. Amanulla, Vs the District Collector

D.Elango Vs Dr.D.Karthikeyan IAS

Prema Vs The Home Secretary

Athimoolam Vs v.P.Jeyaselan Ias.

Gopinath Vs Jayeseelan