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) 47084

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ
Ragunathan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
H.C.P.(MD)No.589 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Joel Paul Antony
For the Respondents: D. Venkatesh

A Habeas Corpus petition cannot be maintained when the alleged detenue is residing voluntarily at a location of their own choice and is not subject to illegal confinement by the respondents.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ of Habeas Corpus under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the production of his sister, allegedly held in illegal custody by the fourth respondent. The statute governing the invocation of this writ is the Constitution of India. The core issue was whether the detenue was under illegal detention. The court observed that, based on instructions provided by the State, the detenue is residing voluntarily at an old age home following her husband's demise. The court relied on these factual submissions to determine that no illegal restraint existed. The petition is disposed of as the court found no merit in the allegation of illegal custody.

Table of Content
1. nature and purpose of habeas corpus petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's role in verifying claims of illegal detention upon state evidence. (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 Back to top