Missing Man’s Body Was Buried Unidentified; Madras HC Flags Police Slackness, Orders DCP To Monitor Murder Probe

The petitioner, the father of K. Ramanathan, filed a habeas corpus petition after his son went missing on 23 September 2026.

The second respondent registered a missing-person case, but the petitioner complained that he had not been informed of his son’s fate or the investigation’s progress.

Meanwhile, the third respondent registered a case after an unidentified body was found near Sengattankulam Channel Bridge; the body was buried after efforts to identify it, and was later identified by the deceased’s family.

According to the third respondent’s status report, arrested persons confessed to abducting and killing Ramanathan for gain and abandoning his body near the bridge.

Eight accused had been arrested and two remained absconding.

The case was transferred to the second respondent police station, and both the second and third respondents appeared before the Court.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides the High Court’s jurisdiction to issue writs, including habeas corpus.

The Court referred to Section 194(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, under which the initial case concerning the unidentified body was registered, and to Sections 61(2), 140(1), 239 and 310(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to which that case was altered following the investigation.

The judgment cites no precedent or further doctrinal test.

The Court considered the status reports, which showed that Ramanathan had been identified as the deceased and that the investigation had led to arrests and disclosure of an alleged murder for gain.

It nevertheless found that the second respondent should have acted with greater alacrity and noted apparent slackness in the investigation, particularly regarding the alleged theft of cash and jewellery.

Because two accused remained at large and further property recovery and investigation were required, the Court directed transfer of the case diary without delay, continued investigation by the second respondent, and close monitoring by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madurai North.

It directed the third respondent to hand over the case diary forthwith to the second respondent, directed the second respondent to proceed with the investigation promptly, and ordered the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madurai North, to monitor the investigation and ensure that the remaining accused were apprehended.

The status reports were to be kept in a sealed cover until the final report was filed.