Allowed

N.Ugrasenan v. State Police Chief

Kerala HC15 Nov 2018WP(Crl.)/296/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common disposal of a habeas corpus petition challenging illegal confinement of a partially retarded half-brother in an old-age home and a civil petition seeking police protection. The court set the detenue at liberty in light of a medical report and his explicit desire to leave, an undertaking was recorded, and the protection petition was dismissed after an undertaking by the accused parties.

What did the court decide?

The alleged detenue set at liberty to reside with the 2nd petitioner; undertaking recorded; protection petition closed.

N.Ugrasenan Vs State Police Chief — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018/24TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶6

WP(Crl.).No. 296 of 2018

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 N.UGRASENAN, AGED 84 YEARS, S/O. NANU, RESIDING AT 'VAISAKAM', HOUSE NO.27, ANANYA NAGAR, THANGASSERRY P.O, KOLLAM - 691 012.

¶9

2 N. PADMALOCHANAN, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O. NANU, RESIDING AT 'SEA VIEW', HOUSE NO.531,TANGY NAGAR 72, THANGASSERRY P.O, KOLLAM - 691 007.

¶10

BY ADV.

¶11

SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM.

¶15

3 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

¶16

4 S.I OF POLICE, WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

¶17

5 BABU RAGHAVAN, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN, VIMAL VIHAR, PATHINETTUMURI, PUNNATHALA, KOLLAM - 691 007.

¶18

6 MR. NIXON, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 'KARUNALAYAM', SOCIAL WELFARE MEDICAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY, OLD AGE HOME, REG.NO.T.2492/07 NEAR GURUGOPINATH NADANA GRAMAM, THOPUMUKKU,KURIVIKADU, VATTIYURKAVU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 013.

¶19

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case -:2:-

¶20

7 ADDL.R7. THE SUPERINTENDENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (ADDL.R7 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.08.2018.)

¶21

BY ADVS.

¶22

SRI.M.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

SR.GP.SRI. K.B.RAMANAND

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).24063/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case -:3:-

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM &

¶30

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶31

THURSDAY,THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 /24TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶32

WP(C).No. 24063 of 2018

¶33

PETITIONER:

¶34

BABU RAGHAVAN

¶35

AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT ASHIANAN (VIMAL VIHAR) THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 012.

¶36

BY ADVS.

¶37

SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR SRI.NOBEL RAJU

¶38

RESPONDENTS:

¶39

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

¶40

2 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER KOLLAM-691 001.

¶41

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION KOLLAM-691 004.

¶42

4 SUJITH RESIDING AT ANEPPIL HOUSE KANKATHU JUNCTION THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O. KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 012.

¶43

5 SUBHASH RESIDING AT PANDARATHIL VEEDU NELLMUKKU, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 012.

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2018, ALONG WITH WP(Crl.).296/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

-:4:-

¶46

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case

¶47

C.K. ABDUL REHIM

¶48

¶49

T.V. ANILKUMAR, JJ.

¶50

-----------------------------------------------------

¶51

W.P.(Crl) No. 296 OF 2018 S &

¶52

W.P.(C) No. 24063 OF 2018

¶53

-------------------------------------------------------

¶54

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2018

¶55

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶56

Abdul Rehim, J.

¶57

W.P.(Crl) 926 of 2018 is a writ petition filed by two brothers

¶58

of a person named Sethu Raghavan @ Pappy(hereinafter

¶59

referred to as 'the alleged detenue'). The petitioners are seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for commanding production of the corpus of the alleged detenue, who is alleged to have been kept under illegal custody at the 6^th respondent's institution, at

¶60

the instance of the 5^th respondent, and to set him at liberty.

¶61

W.P.(C) No.24063/2018 is a writ petition filed by the

¶62

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case -:5:-

¶63

5^th respondent in the above said case, seeking police protection to the life of himself and to his wife, against the alleged threat of violence from the side of respondents 4 and 5 therein. Since it was submitted before the court in which W.P.(C) No. 24063/2018 was considered, that the subject matter of that case is intrinsically connected with W.P.(Crl) 296/2018, the said court directed the Registry to post both the matters together. Accordingly both the cases are considered together and disposed of through this common judgment.

¶64

W.P.(Crl) No.296/2018

¶65

It is stated that the alleged detenue and the 5^th respondent are half brothers, born to the same mother. It is also stated that the alleged detenue is a person partially retarded and unmarried. According to the petitioners, the alleged detenue was staying in a house of his own and he used to visit the 2^nd petitioner, who is residing about 1 k.m. away. From 03.06.2018 onwards the alleged detenue was missing and the petitioners lodged complaints to the 4^th respondent. But the 4^th

¶66

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case -:6:-

¶67

respondent has not taken any action, is the allegation. On enquiry, the petitioners got information that the 5^th respondent had forcibly removed the alleged detenue to an old-age home run by the 6^th respondent, at a distant place near Thiruvananthapuram. When the petitioners met the alleged detenue at the institution, he was crying and requested to take back him to his home. Even though the petitioners requested the 6^th respondent to release the alleged detenue, it was refused stating that the 5^th respondent only had admitted him and that the petitioners cannot be permitted to take him back. The petitioners again lodged a complaint before the 3^rd respondent, as evidenced from Ext.P1. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that, the 5^th respondent had demolished the house belonging to the alleged detenue. According to the petitioners, all the relatives of the alleged detenue, except the 5^th respondent, are at worry about detention of the alleged detenue at the 6^th respondent's institution. It is also alleged that the 6^th respondent had attempted to misled the petitioners by saying

¶68

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case -:7:-

¶69

that the alleged detenue is admitted there under instructions from the "District Social Justice', Kollam. But on enquiry made, the petitioners came to know that no such direction was given by any such authority. Under the above mentioned circumstances, raising an allegation that the alleged detenue is kept under illegal confinement against his free will, the above writ petition is filed.

¶70

Initially when the writ petition came up for consideration, we directed the 3^rd respondent to make a visit to the alleged detenue and to get his statement recorded independently. In a statement of the alleged detenue recorded by the 3^rd respondent, which was produced before this court, it is indicated that, he is not intending to continue the stay at the 6^th respondent's institution and that he is not willing to go along with the 5^th respondent. He had expressed his desire to go along with the 2^nd petitioner. On the basis of the said statement, this court issued notice to the 5^th respondent. The petitioners were given liberty to visit the alleged detenue at the 5^th

¶71

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case -:8:-

¶72

respondent's institution.

¶73

Subsequent to appearance of the 5^th respondent,

¶74

there arose rival contentions before this court regarding the mental status of the alleged detenue. Therefore this court issued directions to the Superintendent of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram to have an assessment regarding the physical and mental conditions of the alleged detenue, if necessary by referring him for consultation by expert doctors. The 6^th respondent was directed to make necessary arrangements for taking the alleged detenue for consultation at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter on different occasions, this court issued specific directions to the Superintendent of Medical College Hospital, who was impleaded suo moto as additional 7^th respondent, to expedite the steps to constitute a Medical Board and to submit a report after examination of the alleged detenue.

¶75

The Superintendent of the Medical College Hospital,

¶76

Thiruvananthapuram had forwarded a report to this court on

¶77

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case -:9:-

¶78

31.10.2018, enclosing the report of the Special Medical Board constituted for examination of the alleged detenue. It is evident that a Medical Board consisting of 10 expert doctors included specialist in Psychiatry, Ophthalmology, Cardiology, Urology, Neurology, Orthopedics, General Medicine, Physical medicine, ENT, etc. The inference arrived and the conclusions recorded by the Medical Board would indicate that, the alleged detenue is having mild 'Dementia Syndrome'. He was found to be suffering from dementing illness, for which he need constant care and protection. It was opined that such care and protection will enhance his quality of life and also help to retard progression of the illness. Apart from such an observation, it is found that, his cardiac functions are stable and he does not suffer from any significant cardiac problems. But it is mentioned that he had problem with his eye sight due to 'cataract' in both the eyes and need cataract surgery with implantation of intraoccular lens. The opinion of the experts of the Orthopedics, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is to the effect that he has

¶79

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case -:10:-

¶80

no disabilities on those sides.

¶81

Based on the report of the Medical Board, we direct the alleged detenue to be produced before this court, on today. When the alleged detenue is produced, we interacted with him at the Chambers. To all the primary questions put to him, he gave intelligible answers. We found him to be fit enough mentally to take intelligible decision with respect to his choice regarding the place of residence. He had narrated the entire history as mentioned in his statement which was produced earlier. He submitted before us that, he was taken to the 6^th respondent's institution forcibly by the 5^th respondent and got him admitted there against his will. According to him, he does not want to continue the stay at the 6^th respondent's institution. He expressed his desire to go along with the 2^nd petitioner and to stay with the family of the latter. He expect that the 2^nd petitioner and his wife will take care of his needs in a better manner.

¶82

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶83

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case -:11:-

¶84

submitted that, the 2^nd petitioner is present before this court on today and he is ready and willing to take the alleged detenue with him to his house and to look after his needs by providing him with all the requisite medical support.

¶85

We are of the considered opinion that the alleged detenue is now kept admitted at the 6^th respondent's institution, against his free will. It is necessary to set him at liberty and to permit him to go along with the person whom he wanted to reside with. Therefore, the above writ petition is hereby disposed of by setting the alleged detenue at liberty to go along with the petitioner, as desired by him. The 5^th respondent or any other siblings of the alleged detenue or their children will be at liberty to visit the alleged detenue at the house of the 2^nd petitioner. The undertaking made by the 2^nd petitioner that he will provide all necessary protection and care to the alleged detenue, without any fail, is hereby recorded. It is made clear that if there is any failure in this regard the 5^th respondent or any other person related to the alleged detenue will be at liberty to

¶86

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case -:12:-

¶87

approach the appropriate authority.

¶88

The petitioners will make payment of balance amount if any due to the 6^th respondent in connection with the expenses incurred for taking the alleged detenue for medical check up to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, in compliance of earlier orders passed by this court.

¶89

W.P.(C) No.24063/2018

¶90

The petitioner herein is seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and his wife, against the alleged threat of violence from the side of the respondents 4 and 5 herein.

¶91

Heard; counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

¶92

The learned Government Pleader submitted that,

¶93

based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the parties

¶94

were summoned to the station and the respondents 4 and 5

¶95

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case -:13:-

¶96

had undertaken that they are not intending to cause any threat, intimidation or interference in the life of the petitioner or his wife and accordingly the issue was amicably settled.

¶97

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 had undertaken before this court also that they have no intention to cause any threat or assault to the petitioner or his family members.

¶98

The above undertaking is recorded and the writ petition is accordingly closed.

¶99

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE .

¶100

Sd/- T.V. ANILKUMAR, JUDGE, JUDGE .

ul/-

[True copy]

P.S. to Judge.

-:14:-

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case

¶106

APPENDIX OF WP(Crl.) 296/2018

¶107

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶108

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.06.2018 ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

¶109

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED, 5.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE OFFICER OF DISTRICT SOCIAL JUSTICE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM.

¶110

-:15:-

¶111

W.P.(Crl) No. 296/2018 & con. case

¶112

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24063/2018

¶113

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶114

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT 16-05-2018 SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶115

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 17-05-2018.

¶116

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EVIDENCING THE DELIVERY OF THE COMPLAINT.

N.Ugrasenan v. State Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Ugrasenan v. State Police Chief

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

Firoz P.S @ Sumesh P.S Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Mr. Anil Kumar Vs Smt. Omana Kutty

Kodakkal Puthiya Veettil Chandran Vs S.v.Abdulla Kunhi

T.J Antony @ Sony Vs Asha Sony @ Asha Antony

Arafa E.K Vs Joseph Paul

Gopalakrishnan, Vs the Station House Officer