Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4372
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Krishnamoorthy
Versus
The Home Secretary Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai & Others
H.C.P. No. 417 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided On :10-03-2010
For the Petitioner:T.P. Senthil Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The legality of custody and detention in the context of a writ of habeas corpus is determined by whether the individual is in judicial custody following a registered case.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Judicial Custody - The court found that since the individual was remanded to judicial custody following a registered case, there was no illegal custody or detention, and thus dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to produce their son, Manikandan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no case for consideration of the request made by the petitioner, as the individual was remanded to judicial custody following a registered case.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner's request for a writ of habeas corpus should be considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that since the individual was in judicial custody following a registered case, there was no illegal custody or detention, and thus dismissed the petition.
Final Decision: The habeas corpus petition and connected MP were dismissed.
Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
1. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been brought forth seeking a direction to the respondents to produce one Manikandan the son of the petitioner herein.
2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The affidavit in support of the petition is also perused.
3. No case is made out, in the considered opinion of the Court, even for consideration of the request made by the petitioner.
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the averments in paragraph 4 of the affidavit would indicate that he was remanded to judicial custody. Hence it would be quite clear that a case should have been registered by the fourth respondent. Once he is judicially remanded following the arrest made pursuant to a case which was registered by the fourth respondent, there is no question of illegal custody or detention. In such circumstances, no question of consideration of the request of the petitioner for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus would arise. Hence this habeas corpus petition requires an order of dismissal, and accordingly it is dismissed. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.
