SAMEENA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for a direction to direct the 2nd respondent to produce the petitioner's husband namely, Mr.Sathik Basha, aged about 32 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) The factual matrix to be considered for the purpose of deciding the present Habeas Corpus Petition is that the detenu namely, Mr.Sathik Basha, was residing at Vela Goundampatty, Namakkal District. The petitioner is none other than the wife of the detenu Mr.Sathik Basha. The petitioner has got two children and she belongs to Pazhaiyanur Village in Kerala State. The marriage between the petitioner and the detenu was solemnized on 30.03.2008 in the presence of two family members and elders with their consent. The petitioner was leading a happy matrimonial life with the detenu. The detenu Mr.Sathik Basha was employed as a pipeline contractor. However, he was found missing from 103.2016 onwards. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent on 18.03.2017 and a case was registered in Crime No.74 of 2017 under man missing. The respondent police commenced the investigation and examined 17 witnesses, but all are the relatives and friends and trade related members. All the witnesses spoke about the love affair of the detenu with one Smt.Kowsalya, who is the neighbour of the detenu and she is studying in Sengunthar Arts and Science College, Thiruchengodu. The family members of the said Kowsalya warned him. The police investigation reveals that the detenu is committing the habitual offence of marrying various women and eloping with them. The various instances are noticed that the detenu is eloping with different girls frequently. However, the police had taken steps and a Special Team was constituted to continue the investigation. The Special Team conducted searches at various places and circulated photographs of the detenu and the said Kowsalya through WhatsApp group and other media. However, no fruitful result came out and the police is unable to trace the detenu.

(3.) The question arises whether the present Habeas Corpus Petition shall be maintained or not. On a plain reading of the affidavit filed in support of the present Habeas Corpus Petition, we are unable to find any substantial ground to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu is in illegal detention. In the absence of any such illegal detention or at least a suspicion, based on certain materials, we are not inclined to consider the present Habeas Corpus Petition. It is a condition precedent that the petitioner should establish an illegal detention or at least a reliable strong suspicion and the man/woman missing cannot be brought in the Habeas Corpus Petition.