Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. The petitioner one Mrs.Suguna, seeks a writ of habeas corpus alleging that she is residing in the address mentioned in the petition; that her husband was taken by the respondents 1 and 2 on 22. 2008; but, he was not produced before any Judicial Magistrate that time; that telegraphic messages were given to both the respondents on 3. 2008, but of no avail; that a paper publication has been made that the petitioners husband was arrested along with others and lot of jewels were taken from them by the second respondent police, and under the circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to file this petition for a writ of habeas corpus before this Court. 2. In answer to the above, it is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that an offence was committed by four persons in which the petitioners husband was also involved; that the occurrence has taken place on 22. 2008 at 4.45 a.m.; that immediately a case was registered at about 5.00 a.m. by Nagore Police Station during which the petitioners husband along with three others actually attempted to kill the vehicle driver and wanted to take the vehicle away; but, fortunately, he escaped; that the said case was registered in Crime No.155 of 2008 under Sections 364, 307 and 379 read with 511 and 34 of IPC; that the investigation was on; that pending investigation, out of four accused, A-1 to A-3 were arrested; that the petitioners husband shown as A1, was arrested by Dindigul Town North Police Station in connection with some other case; that all the four accused including the petitioners husband, were arrested on 3. 2008; that they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Nagore, on 3. 2008; that they were all judicially remanded; that subsequently, A-1 to A-3 and the petitioners husband were enlarged on bail; that under the circumstances, all these allegations made before this Court, are false and hence, the petition has got to be dismissed. 3. After hearing the submissions made and also looking into the materials available, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition requires an order of dismissal. Admittedly, the occurrence has taken place in the early hours of 22. 2008, and the case came to be registered within a short span of time in Crime No.155 of 2008, and thus, the investigation was on. Admittedly, the occurrence has taken place in the early hours of 22. 2008, and the case came to be registered within a short span of time in Crime No.155 of 2008, and thus, the investigation was on. According to the prosecution, four persons were involved. They were arrested on 5. 2008 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate concerned, and they were remanded and subsequently bailed out. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the paper publication relied on by the petitioners side, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be relied on. Apart from that, even assuming that the petitioners husband was taken to police custody by the respondents 1 and 2 on 22. 2008, there was no reason to give a telegraphic message after a period of five days, to the respondents 1 and 2. In such circumstances, the telegraphic message which could not be relied on, makes out no case. Hence, the petition does not carry any merit, and accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, connected MP is closed.