Elipe Dharma Rao, J.

The petitioner, who is said to be the uncle of the detenu, has filed the above Habeas Corpus Petition to direct respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenu P.Sivabalan, S/o P.C.Palanisamy, bodily before this Court and set him at liberty and consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to act in accordance with law.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

3. To assess the case on hand, a brief background of the case is necessary. From the materials placed on record, we are able to see that earlier one N. Elangovan has filed H.C.P.No.1092 of 2008, praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to produce the detenus (i) P.C. Palanisamy, son of P.S. Chinnasamy, (ii) Malarvizhi, wife of P.C. Palanisamy and (iii) P. Sivabalan, son of P.C.Palanisamy, bodily before this Court and set them at liberty. His contention was that due to a property dispute between the detenus and respondents 5 to 7 therein, at the instance of the third respondent herein, all the above said three detenus were kidnapped and they were