Maragathamani v. Sathyamangalam – Post
Case at a glance
- Bench
- G R SWAMINATHAN, V LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Outcome
Withdrawn
In view of the above submission and endorsement made by learned counsel for petitioner, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to work out his rights in the pending writ petition viz
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44.P.G.Sathish .. RespondentsPrayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondent nos.1 to 3 to produce the corpus of the detenus namely 1. Boobalu, S/o.Palanisamy, male, aged 46 years, 2. Poornima…
Judgment
H.C.P.No. 913 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 14.05.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANH.C.P.No.913 of 2025 Maragathamani.. Petitionervs.
The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Erode – Post & District.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sathyamangalam – Post & Taluk, Erode District.
The Inspector of Police, Punjai-Puliyampatti Police Station, Punjai-Puliyampatti Post, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District.
Operative part
P.G.Sathish .. RespondentsPrayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondent nos.1 to 3 to produce the corpus of the detenus namely 1. Boobalu, S/o.Palanisamy, male, aged 46 years, 2. Poornima, W/o.Boobalu, Female, aged 38 years and their children minor detenus 3. Sasthika, D/o.Boobalu, Female aged 7 years and 4. Krithik, S/o.Boobalu, male 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No. 913 of 2025aged 1 year, before this Court from the illegal custody at the hands of the 4th respondent by wall on the pathway lead to K.G.Thirumana Mandabam along with residence from Punjai Puliyampatti to Coimbatore Main Road and set their family at liberty. For petitioner: Mr.D.VeerasekaranFor respondents: Mr.R.MuniyapparajAdditional Public Prosecutorfor R1 to R3ORDER(Made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this habeas corpus petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. In view of the above submission and endorsement made by learned counsel for petitioner, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to work out his rights in the pending writ petition viz., W.P.No.18204 of 2025. No costs. [G.R.S.,J.] [V.L.N.,J.] 14.05.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/Nocad/ssm2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No. 913 of 2025To1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Erode – Post & District. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sathyamangalam – Post & Taluk, Erode District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Punjai-Puliyampatti Police Station, Punjai-Puliyampatti Post, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No. 913 of 2025G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.cad/ssmH.C.P.No.913 of 202514.05.20254/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above submission and endorsement made by learned counsel for petitioner, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to work out his rights in the pending writ petition viz
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.