01Facts
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus concerning his wife, Nithya, who had allegedly gone missing on 5 May 2026.
¶ 2–5He also complained that relatives had not returned money and jewellery allegedly entrusted to them by his wife.
¶ 2–5In earlier proceedings, the Court had directed him to submit a fresh complaint to the second respondent, who was to inquire into it in accordance with law, invoking Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
¶ 9The petitioner acknowledged that he had not subsequently sent such a complaint.
¶ 7, 1002Issues
i.Whether the habeas corpus petition was maintainable when no material showed that the petitioner’s wife was under illegal detention or unlawful confinement.
¶ 11–13ii.Whether the petitioner could pursue habeas corpus relief without first following the complaint procedure directed in the earlier proceedings.
¶ 9–1103Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution was invoked for habeas corpus relief. The Court’s reasoning proceeded on the requirement that such relief be supported by material indicating illegal detention or unlawful confinement; an allegation of disappearance, without such material, was insufficient on the facts of this case.
¶ 11–13The Court also relied on its earlier order directing the petitioner to lodge a fresh complaint with the second respondent, who was to inquire and proceed in accordance with law, invoking Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
¶ 9Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 64
04Reasoning
The petitioner had not complied with the earlier direction to submit a fresh complaint, despite acknowledging that he had not sent one by post or by another mode.
¶ 10The Court held that he could not bypass the remedy identified in those proceedings and seek habeas corpus without placing the necessary foundational facts before the Court.
¶ 11Further, the materials did not establish that his wife was illegally detained or unlawfully confined; the grievance principally concerned her disappearance, the alleged non-return of money and jewellery, and police inaction.
¶ 12The petition was therefore not maintainable in its present form.
¶ 1305Holding
The Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition as not maintainable and left the petitioner at liberty to submit a fresh complaint to the second respondent, who was directed to inquire and proceed in accordance with law.
¶ 13It imposed costs of Rs. 10,000, payable to the Siddha Wing attached to the Madurai Bench by 6 November 2026, and directed the matter to be listed for reporting compliance on 11 November 2026.
¶ 14–15Original Court PDF
N.NelsonvsThe State of Tamilnadu
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
