The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to ensure the liberty of individuals through habeas corpus petitions and to determine the legality of detentions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the second respondent to produce petitioner''s brother Dr.K.Asohan, aged 64 years, before this Court from the illegal custody of the third respondent and set him at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.,

1. This order will now dispose of captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' (hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity).

2. Short facts (shorn of elaboration) are that according to the petitioner, her brother Dr.K.Asohan,M.B.B.S., who has been a Medical Practitioner for about 36 years was married to one Dr.E.Sasikala but there are no children from this wedlock and the marriage ended in a divorce; that thereafter Dr.K.Asohan (from hereon, petitioner''s brother Dr.K.Asohan shall be referred to as ''absentee'' for the sake of convenience and clarity) was living with his mother; that fourth respondent was appointed to take care of absentee''s mother who passed away in 2012; that thereafter the fourth respondent continued to have interaction with the absentee; that there was a quarrel between the absentee and fourth respondent on 14.08.2023; that according to the petitioner, on 15.08.2023, fourth respondent lodged a police complaint with the Chengalpet Taluk Police Station in this regard; that at the instance of fourth respondent, the absentee has now been illegally detained in the third respondent centre.

3. To be noted, as regards the facts captured supra, it is made clear that it is the HCP petitioner''s version and we express no opinion on the same.

4. Issue notice to official respondents.

5. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2 (official respondents).

6. We are only concerned with the short point as to whether the absentee has been illegally detained in the third respondent centre as it is a habeas drill. Therefore, the presence of private respondents (respondents 3 and 4) is really not necessary for disposal of captioned HCP and it will suffice to say that all the rights and contentions of respondents 3 and 4 stand preserved in all aspects including the complaints already given and or any other connected/collateral proceedings.

7. Learned Prosecutor on instructions (instructed by Mr.G.Suresh, Sub Inspector of Police, T4 Maduravoyal Police Station) submitted that pursuant to complaint given by the HCP petitioner on 22.08.2023 for which CSR No.1035/2023 was issued, investigation brings to light that the absentee has been admitted in third respondent''s centre at the instance of one Dr.R.K.Rudran. It is also submitted by learned Prosecutor that jurisdictional police have enquired with the third respondent centre and one Thiru.Shanmugam is the Co-ordinator there.

8. As already alluded to supra, we are concerned with the short point as to whether the absentee has been illegally detained by the third respondent centre. For this purpose, we direct the second respodnent to produce the absentee, the petitioner (absentee''s sister),Thiru.Shanmugam, Co-ordinator of third respondent centre and fourth respondent before the jurisdictional Magistrate (we are informed that the jurisdictional magistrate is Judicial Magistrate - II, Poonamallee) on Monday (11.09.2023) at half past ten. We request the learned Magistrate to record the statements of absentee, petitioner and Thiru.Shanmugam of third respondent centre and fourth respondent. Suffice to say that if the absentee wants to continue in the centre he will continue in the third respondent centre and if the absentee wants to go elsewhere either with the petitioner or to any other place he will be at liberty to do so and it is the responsibility of second respondent to ensure that absentee is able to go and stay wherever he prefers but this will depend on absentee''s statement before learned jurisdictional Magistrate. This is more so as the absentee is a medical doctor who is now 62 years old.

9. A