V. Senthilnathan v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA H.C.P(MD)No.832 of 2025 V.Senthilnathan ... Petitioner/ brother of the detenue -VsThe State of Tamil Nadu 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur Police Station, Trichy District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to secure petitioner's brother and to produce the person or body of the detenu namely V.Sivabalan, son of Veerappan, aged about 49 years before this Court and set his at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananda Kumar For Respondents : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction directing the respondents 1 & 2 to secure the petitioner's brother and to produce the person or body of the detenu namely V.Sivabalan, son of Veerappan, aged about 49 years before this Court and set his at liberty.

2. The case of the petitioner is that his brother, who is a practicing Advocate, had gone to Delhi on 03.06.2025. On 05.06.2025 his missing brother had called him from Delhi stating that he is in short of money and he is having only Rs.4,000/- and he asked the petitioner to send money. The petitioner replied that he will send money to his account through G-Pay and for which, he replied that he had booked return ticket and thereafter the petitioner was unable to contact his brother. Therefore, the petitioner had given a complaint to the second respondent. Based on the complaint given by the petitioner, the second respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.542 of 2025 for 'man missing'. After

the complaint, the petitioner had also gone to Delhi in search of his brother and the Nizamudin Police verified the CCTV footages and confirmed that there is a video footage for his brother's entry into Nizamudin Railway Station, but they could not find out a clear CCTV footage for his exit from the Nizamudin Railway Station. The petitioner was advised to get the assistance from the local police. The petitioner further submits that the second respondent police has not given any assistance and thereby, he has filed the present habeas corpus petition.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that based on the complaint given by the petitioner that his brother went missing from Delhi, the respondents are continuing with the investigation. He would further submit that the petitioner's brother was last found missing from Nizamudin Railway Station at Delhi and that the petitioner ought to have approached the concerned jurisdictional police, namely, Nizamudin Railway Police Station at Delhi.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

5. We find that it is not a case where the petitioner's brother is found to be illegal detention. The petitioner has already given a complaint before the Hazarat Nizamudin Police Station.

6. In view of the above, this habeas corpus petition is closed. The second respondent is directed to give assistance to the petitioner in respect of the call details relating to the petitioner's brother. [A.D.J.C., J.] & [R.P., J.] 18.07.2025 NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No am

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur Police Station, Trichy District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

AND R.POORNIMA , J.

am H.C.P(MD)No.832 of 2025 18.07.2025