1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU HABEAS CORPUS PETITION (MD) No.581 of 2011 Manimaran, S/o.Natarajan ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy. 2.The Inspector of Police, Manachanallur Police Station, Trichy District. 3.Thamizharasan ... Respondents Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to produce the detenu, namely Vetri, aged 22 years, S/o.Manimaran, before this Court and to set him at liberty. For Petitioner ... Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran For Respondents ... Mr.A.Ramar, 1 & 2 Addl.Public prosecutor. For Respondent-3 ... Mr.N.Sankar Ganesh ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J) The petitioner is the father of one Vetri, aged about 22 years, who was studying in a local college. According to the petitioner, lastly on 05.07.2011, Mr.Vetri (the detenu) had gone out informing his parents that he was proceeding to the College to get his mark sheet. He did not return. According to the petitioner, there was some misunderstanding between the detenu and the 3rd respondent. Therefore, he suspects that the 3rd respondent would have taken him and detained him elsewhere illegally. With these allegations, the petitioner has preferred a complaint, upon which a case in Crime No.165/2011, for 'man https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 missing', has been registered on 09.07.2011 and the matter is under investigation. Since the missing boy has not been secured by the Police, the petitioner has come up with this habeas corpus petition. 2.The 3rd respondent has appeared through his counsel. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that the 3rd respondent has got nothing to do with the detenu and he does not have any knowledge about the missing of the detenu. In effect, the 3rd respondent would submit that Mr.Vetri was not taken by him and he is not in his custody. 3.The 2nd respondent has filed a Status Report, wherein the 2nd respondent has narrated various steps taken during the course of investigation. He has vividly explained the number of persons examined and their details. In paragraph No.11 of the Status Report, he has stated that the detenu had many girl friends and he also had the habit of taking alcohol. In effect, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would try to say that it may be a case of elopement of the detenu with someone else. 4.We have considered the above submissions. From the materials placed before this Court, it is crystal clear that, as of now, there is nothing on record to show that the detenu has been detained by anybody illegally, more particularly by the 3rd respondent. Further, investigation is taken in the right direction. Therefore, we are of the view that no further orders are necessary in this matter, at this stage. We are therefore inclined to close this habeas corpus petition. 5.Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is closed, however, with a direction to the 2nd respondent police to expedite the investigation. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy. 2.The Inspector of Police, Manachanallur Police Station, Trichy District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.N.Sankar Ganesh, Advocate, Sr.No.41618 gb ssk/09.12.2011 /5c -2p/- Order in HCP(MD)No.581 of 2011 Dated:28.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/