SEETHALAKSHMI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COMMISSIONER OFFICE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in this Habeas Corpus Petition is for a direction to direct the respondents herein to produce the missing man, the petitioner's son Mr.Balamurugan, aged about 39 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) The affidavit filed in support of the present Habeas Corpus Petition states that the son of the petitioner Mr.Balamurugan was employed as Supervisor in a Plastic Company at Thirupur. On 16.07.2017, Mr.Balamurugan went to the shop at 8.30 in the morning, the petitioner waited for his return till 11 O'Clock and he had not returned back to home, thus the petitioner was constrained to lodge a complaint before the respondent police on 18.07.2017. The respondent police also registered a case in Crime No.1650 of 2017 dated 21.07.2017. Thereafter, an advertisement was given in a local newspaper Daily Thanthi on 20.08.2017. The grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that the respondent police have not taken adequate steps to trace out the missing son who is aged about 39 years and produce before the petitioner.

(3.) The primary question to be considered by this Court is to whether the Habeas Corpus Petition can be maintained in a man/ woman missing case. Absolutely there is no allegation of illegal detention or otherwise in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is a condition precedent that there must be an illegal detention or at least there must be some substantiated grounds regarding suspicion. In the absence of any such contention no Habeas Corpus Petition shall be entertained under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The special nature of the Habeas Corpus Petition is to produce the body or person, for that purpose it must be established that a person is in illegal detention. The fundamental right and liberty is to be protected, only if there is an illegal detention, either by State or by a private individual.