AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the first respondent to produce Subaida Banu, aged about 33 years, the wife of the petitioner, and his children, namely, Faisal Ameen, aged about 9 years, and Sana, aged about 5 years, before this Court and to set them at liberty.
The petitioner has stated that the second respondent has been keeping the detenus in illegal custody. In spite of a complaint having been made to the first respondent, regarding the illegal custody of his wife and children, by the second respondent, no action has been taken by the first respondent to procure the detenus and to set them at liberty. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court.
From the available records, it is seen that the petitioner had filed a Habeas Corpus Petition, in H.C.P. (MD) No. 71 of 2010, in which, a direction has been issued by this Court, by its order, dated 16.2.2010, directing the respondent police to investigate the matter and to secure the detenue in the said Habeas Corpus Petition, namely, Subaida Banu, wife of the petitioner, and to produce her before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. This Court had also directed the Commissioner of Police, Trichy District, to monitor and to expedite the investigation in the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred the present Habeas Corpus Petition to direct the first respondent to produce his wife, namely, Subaida Banu and his two children, namely, Faisal Ameen and Sana. This Court, by an order, dated 12.7.2010, had directed the respondent police to comply with the earlier order of this Court, dated 16.2.2010, passed in H.C.P.(MD) No. 71 of 2010, to produce the detenue, Subaida Banu, before this Court.
During the pendency of the present Habeas Corpus Petition, both the minor detenus have been produced before this Court and they have been handed over to the maternal grand mother of the children to keep them in her custody.
At this stage of the hearing of the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had insisted that the first respondent police may be directed to expedite the investigation in the matter and to produce the detenue, namely, Subaida Banu, before this Court, within a stipulated time.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the first respondent, had submitted that necessary steps have been taken to procure the detenue, by forming a special team. He has further submitted that investigation in the matter is being monitored by the Commissioner of Police, Trichy District, as already directed by this Court by its earlier orders, dated 16.2.2010 and 12.7.2010. A detailed status report, dated 19.10.2011, has also been filed before this Court, by the Commissioner of Police, Trichirappalli City.
In such circumstances, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court, dated 16.2.2010, in H.C.P.(MD) No. 71 of 2010 and the order, dated 12.7.2010, passed in the present Habeas Corpus petition, this Court is of the view that no further orders are necessary in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed.