Dismissed

Naeema v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Aug 2013WP(Crl.)/353/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition regarding the alleged unexplained arrest and non-production of the petitioner's brother before a criminal court, the Court noted that the petitioner's initial claim of arrest on 26.07.2013 was unsupported by material evidence. Upon obtaining instructions, the State clarified that the arrestand production occurred on 30.07.2013 and 31.07.2013 respectively, after which

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no further directions issued, as the accused has been produced before the court and remanded to judicial custody.

Naeema Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2013/11TH SRAVANA, 1935 WP(Crl.).No. 353 of 2013 (S) -----------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :

¶6

NAEEMA AGED 23 YEARS D/O. MUHAMMED, PUTHUKKUDY HOUSE, PARAMMEL PUTHOOR, KOTTACKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)

¶8

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶9

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ERNAKULAM-82 031.

¶11

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, THRIPUNITHURA-682 301. R1 -R 3 BY ADV. ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ

¶14

WP(Crl) No.353 of 2013

¶15

......................................... Dated 2^nd August, 2013

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶18

The petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that her brother Nizammudin @ Nizam was arrested by third respondent on 26.7.2013 and that thereafter his whereabouts are not known. He is making this allegation and complaining that despite arrest, he was not produced before any criminal court. The writ petition was filed on 30.7.2013 for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. In view of the allegation raised, learned Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions in the matter. Accordingly, instructions have been obtained and it is submitted by learned Additional Director General of Prosecution that the alleged detenu was arrested by third respondent at 8.40 pm on 30.7.2013 and that Crime No.1159 of 2013 has been registered against him. It is also stated that on 31.7.2013, the alleged detenu was produced before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and that he has been remanded to judicial custody.

¶19

Although it is specific allegation of the petitioner that the detenu was arrested at 3.45 pm on 26.7.2013, apart from the

¶20

Wp(crl)No.353/2013

¶21

¶22

assertion made, there is absolutely no material to accept the said contention. On the other hand, according to respondent, his arrest was only on 30.7.2013 and he was produced before the criminal court on 31.7.2013 also. Therefore, this court is not in a position to accept the case of the petitioner and in view of the fact that detenu has now been produced before the criminal court and is under remand, no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.

¶23

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶24

P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE

¶25

lgk

Naeema v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naeema v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulaiman Vs Ummul Fasla @ Fasia

Abdul Basheer P.A. Vs Nabeesa

Roy P.P. Vs Sreeja N.K.

Ahammed Binshan Vs Seenath

M/S.Trans World Hire Purchase India Ltd. Vs Smt.Sibi

Shajitha Vs Niyas