DURAISAMY Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in this Habeas Corpus Petition is to direct the first respondent to cause the production of the body and the person of the petitioner's wife Smt.Rajeswari, aged about 45 years and set her at liberty.

(2.) On a perusal of the entire affidavit filed in support of the present habeas corpus petition, we could be able to find out that the writ petitioner, who is aged about 67 years has involved in some spiritual activities in Coimbatore District. The people of that locality used to call the petitioner as "Thavathiru Balamuruganadimai Neelamalai Sithar Swamigal" and the petitioner is doing his spiritual activities at 'Arulmigu Sri Devi Periyakandiamman Temple' at Kanuvai Village in Coimbatore District for the past several years. The petitioner states that he was affectionate towards his wife and his sons and on account of his spiritual activities, many number of devotees used to meet him in the said temple. On 25.10.2012, the detenue left the home of the petitioner and she had not returned back. The petitioner and other family members searched the whereabouts of the detenue and the entire efforts taken, went in vain. Thus, the petitioner was constrained to lodge a police complaint before the second respondent on 27.10.2012, and the same has been registered in Crime No.737 of 2012 as "women missing". Under these circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to move the present habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The question raised in the absence of any illegal detention or establishing the strong suspicion of illegal detention, no habeas corpus petition can be entertained by this Court. Absolutely, there is no allegation of any such illegal detention or an established suspicion in the affidavit filed in support of the present habeas corpus petition. It is a condition precedent that a person moving a habeas corpus petition, should establish the illegal detention or suspicion, so as to make an impression that the detenue had been illegally detained. In the absence of any such averments and substantial facts, this Court would not be in a position to entertain the habeas corpus petitions.