SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 32603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ
S.Nagajothi – Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District. – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.Harish
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.N.Narkeeran for R1, R2

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) The document is a High Court decision involving S. Nagajothi and the Superintendent of Police, decided on 16-04-2026. - (!) The judgment content and findings regarding the appellant’s challenge to police actions are not provided in the excerpt. - (!) The exact legal questions answered by the judgment are not stated in the provided text. - (!) No procedural history, constitutional grounds, or relief sought are included in the excerpt. - (!) The citation indicates it is a Madras High Court matter with a Supreme Online reference. - (!) Without the full text, specific rulings, citations, and citations to statutes or precedents cannot be identified. - (!) The document’s title suggests a criminal or administrative challenge but does not reveal the precise legal issues resolved. - (!) The decision date is 16-04-2026, which may be relevant for understanding the timeline of proceedings. - (!) The roles of the parties are clear (appellant vs. respondent), but the legal questions remain unspecified. - (!) The provided excerpt does not include any operative orders or conclusions.

How to determine the admissibility of evidence in the context of the case?

What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction in supervising police proceedings?

What are the rights of the appellant in challenging the Superintendent of Police's actions?


Table of Content
1. habeas corpus filed for missing minor daughter. (Para 1 , 2)
2. detenue produced and restored to mother. (Para 3 , 4)
3. petition closed, nothing survives. (Para 5)

This habeas corpus petition has been instituted by the mother of one S.Niranjana, who has been found missing from 30.03.2026 onwards.

2. When the matter had come up for admission, we had directed the respondents to take necessary steps to secure her and had adjourned the matter to today.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor produces the detenue (17 years 8 months as on date DOB : 31.08.2008) in Court today.

4. Though detenue states that she had gone to Villupuram and thereafter to Salem to meet a male friend of hers, it would suffice for the purpose of this petition to record that she has now been handed over to the custody of her mother, who is present in Court.

5. Nothing further survives for adjudication in this habeas corpus petition and recording the aforesaid, we close the same. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top