AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.
This habeas corpus petition has been filed by one Vasantha, W/o.Murugan @ Keethiyon alleging that her husband went to Dubai on 25.02.2007 and his employment was arranged by a local agent. He was contacted the petitioner twice in a year till 2017 and thereafter, he did not contact her.
Apprehending his life may be in danger and know the whereabouts of her husband, the present habeas corpus petition has been filed through Legal Services Authority.
Mr.N.Syed Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner represented that the petitioner herein was not aware of the other details about her husband and therefore, with the minimum detail the present habeas corpus petition has been filed.
This Court is unable to invoke article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The very reading of the affidavit clearly indicates that without any fundamental facts but furnishing the false information, the writ petition seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus has been filed.
The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent would submit that the Passport number U5555555 furnished by the petitioner is non-existing number and it does not tally with the information furnished by the petitioner. The details of the employer of her husband, the place of employment at Dubai, the address or mode through which her husband contacted the petitioner and the fundamental details are unavailable in the affidavit. On receipt of the notice in habeas corpus petition, the authorities contacted the petitioner to furnish the above details, but the petitioner could not furnish the same.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who was represented the other respondents, also informs the Court that the petitioner did not co-operate with the investigation by furnishing the details about her missing husband.
In the said circumstances, this Court finds no merit to entertain the habeas corpus petition, which is bereft of fundamental details. Hence, this petition is dismissed.