R PADMARAJA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT; INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAMANATHAPURAM POLICE STATION; A RAMALINGAM; SHANMUGARAJA; BALAMURALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.Padmaraja, has sought for writ for Habeas Corpus directing the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram, and the Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Ramanathapuram District, to produce Mr.Raguram, aged about 56 years and son of K.S.D.Rajendran, before this Court.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the alleged detenu is his father. In his supporting affidavit, he has submitted that his father Raguram, S/o.K.S.D.Rajendran, was a Jamin of Pallayampatti Jamin family. He owns several valuable properties. He was legally separated from the petitioner's mother. Respondent No.3, who is the brother-in-law of the detenu, is an influential person with political strength. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4, is the driver of the alleged detenu and respondent No.5 is the manager of Palayampatti Jamin, Ramanathapuram District. The petitioner has further submitted that he is doing business at Chennai and used to have frequent contacts with his father. Recently, his father has been missing from the petitioner's native town. When he enquired, his grand-mother, Mrs.Padmarani, has replied that his father Raguram, had been detained by respondents 3 to 5, by administering drugs. The petitioner has further stated that when he requested respondents 3 to 5, to release his father, there was no answer. Instead, the petitioner only received threat from unknown quarters. Therefore, in the abovesaid circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to lodge a complaint dated 02.07.2014 to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram, who in turn has forwarded the same, to the Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram Police Station, respondent No.2. Though the complaint has been registered in Petition No.302/2014, as the respondent No.3, is an influential person, and wanted to grab the properties from the petitioner's father, by use of threat, no action has been taken. On the above facts, the petitioner has sought for writ of Habeas Corpus.

(3.) The complaint dated 02.07.2014 addressed to the official respondent and 'Dinamalar' paper news dated 03.07.2014 are enclosed in the typed set of papers. Mr.K.Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General, State of Tamilnadu, took notice for respondents 1 and 2. Notice to private respondents through Court and privately was ordered.