The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish illegal detention before entertaining a habeas corpus petition, as emphasized by various legal principles and case law.

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

The relief sought for in this Habeas Corpus Petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, by name R. Nagarajan, aged about 37 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the detenu is her husband and was an employee of Hindu Mission Hospital, Tambaram as Ward Boy. The detenu was working in the said hospital for about 17 years and on 17.03.2017, the husband of the petitioner was on leave and did not attend his job. On the very same day, at about 5.00 p.m., the detenu left his home by stating that he is going to a shop. Thereafter, the detenu not returned back home till 11.00 p.m. Thus, the petitioner called her husband, through his mobile number, but the same was switched off. This made the petitioner to file a complaint and thereafter, to file the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

3. We are of the considered opinion that there is no allegation of any illegal detention of the husband of the petitioner even in the affidavit filed in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition. This apart, it is a pre-condition for the petitioner to establish an illegal detention for the purpose of entertaining the Habeas Corpus Petition. If any illegal detention is established or atleast a strong suspicion is made out, then this Court will be in a position to entertain the Habeas Corpus Petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents states that a case of “man missing” has already been registered and the police are investigating the same in accordance with law.

5. A status report filed by the first respondent, Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram, narrates the investigation conducted by the police. Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the status report is extracted hereunder:-

“6. The petitioner has given a clue about her husband that her husband's friends one Mr. Antony and Soloman have seen her husband at Velankanni festival, Nagapattinam District on 29.08.2017 and called his name in the heavy crowd, but on seeing them evaded their response and wantonly mingled in the heave crowd there. The 2nd respondent has called for the said Antony and Solaman and have obtained their statements on 12.09.2017.

7. Further, it is submitted that the 2nd respondent has examined one Mr. Jothi, close friend of the said detenu on 18.09.2017 and he has revealed that the detenu behaves like Transgender and unusually hugged and kissed him. He used to take alcohol frequently and he had stated to his friend Mr. Jothi that he has no sexual feelings with his wife and not indulged in sexual affairs with his wife so far and used alcohol to avoid sleepless nights and also he was least interested in the married life.”

6. The learned Government Advocate brought to the notice of this Court that all possible investigations were conducted and even in one occasion, the police could able to say that the close friend of the detenu on 18.09.2017 has stated that the detenu behaves like a “Transgender” and behaved in an unusual manner.

7. Such being the statement made by the close friend of the detenu, we are of the considered opinion that there is no such illegal detention is established even during the investigation by the respondent police. In respect of entertaining the Habeas Corpus Petition, and in the absence of any illegal detention, the Honourable Apex Court of India settled the legal principles in the case of Sulochana Bai Vs. State of M.P. And others and held as follows:-

“4. The writ of habeas corpus as had been called by Blackstone "the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement". The Apex Court in the case of Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, traced the immemorial antiquity of the writ and referred to number of English decisions and opined that there can be no doubt that in enacting Article 32 (2) the Constitution makers meant to give to person illegally restrained of his