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) 45822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ
M. Ragunathan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
H.C.P.(MD)No.614 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Nihar Ali
For the Respondents: D. Venkatesh

A Habeas Corpus petition seeking the release of an individual from alleged illegal custody is rendered infructuous when the state provides evidence that the individual is not in illegal confinement but is living voluntarily in an alternative residence.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the sibling of the petitioner was in illegal custody of a respondent. The state authorities submitted that the alleged detenue is residing at an old age home following the passing of her spouse, providing written confirmation from the home's management. The primary issue concerns the alleged illegal detention of a person. The court determined that in light of the state's submission that the individual is living voluntarily at an old age home, no further judicial intervention is required to secure liberty. The writ petition is disposed of on the basis of the submissions recorded by the court.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks production of a detenue alleging illegal confinement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petition is disposed of upon government evidence confirming the individual's voluntary residence and location. (Para 4 , 5)

(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to produce the body or person of the detenue, who is the sister of the petitioner and to set her at liberty.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The petitioner is the brother of the detenue. The grievance of the petitioner is that the detenue is under the illegal custody of the fourth respondent. The complaint given in this regard did not evoke any response and hence, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) for the respondents on instructions submitted that the detenue is not under the illegal custody of the fourth respondent and that after the demise of the husband of the detenue, she is presently living at Sai Nandhanam Old Age Home at Trichirappalli. To substantiate the said submission, the learned counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) also produced the written instructions from the concerned Old Age Home given by the Managing Trustee.

5. In the light of the above development, except recording the submission made by the learned counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), no further orders can be passed in this petition.

6. This Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

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