Dismissed

Aidron Olivera v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Sept 2018WP(Crl.)/357/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition for habeas corpus, the father and wife prayed for production of their son, alleging illegal detention by third parties. The detenue appeared in court, denying the allegations and attributing his absence to family issues. Finding the detention claims unsubstantiated, the court dismissed the petition, setting the detenue at liberty.

What did the court decide?

Set the alleged detenue at liberty and dismissed the writ petition.

Aidron Olivera Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

WEDNESDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 21ST BHADRA, 1940

¶7

WP(Crl.).No. 357 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 AIDRON OLIVERA AGED 61 YEARS

¶10

S/O.FRANCIS OLIVERA, SHERIN VILLA, T SQUARE ROAD, PACHALAM, PIN - 682 012, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2 MARY ANJU DISILVA AGED 29 YEARS W/O.ANTONY OLIVERO @ PAULSON, SHERIN VILLA, T SQUARE ROAD, PACHALAM, PIN - 682 012, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SHERRY J. THOMAS JOSEPH CHELAKKAT

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1.

¶15

2 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER KOCHIN CITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 012.

¶16

3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ERNAKULAM TOWN (NORTH) POLICE STATION - 682 018.

¶17

W.P.(Crl) No.357/2018

¶18

¶19

4 SAJAN FATHERS NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONERS, ELAMAKKARA VILLAGE, ELAMAKKARA POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 026, PHONE NO.8891581340.

¶20

SR.GP-SRI.K.B.RAMANAND

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(Crl) No.357/2018

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

C.K.Abdul Rehim, J

¶26

The father and wife of a person named Mr.Paulson @ Antony Olivero are the petitioners herein, seeking a writ of habeas corpus for commanding production of the corpus of Mr.Paulson @ Antony Olivero (hereinafter referred to as 'the alleged detenue').

¶27

Allegations in the writ petition are that; the 2^nd petitioner was living along with the alleged detenue at Coimbatore and they came back to the parental home of the alleged detenue at Pachalam, Ernakulam, on 20.07.2018. On that day the alleged detenue went away from the parental home informing that he is going for a tournament at Chennai. Thereafter he sent a message on 23.07.2018 informing that he has other matches in Hyderabad. But thereafter the alleged detenue had not returned up. The petitioners are alleging that the detenue had some financial transactions with two persons and they suspects that the alleged detenue is confined by those persons under illegal detention. Therefore the petitioners are

¶28

W.P.(Crl) No.357/2018

¶29

¶30

approaching this court with the above writ petition.

¶31

When the case came up for consideration before this

¶32

court on 03.09.2018, we directed the learned Government

¶33

Pleader to get instructions from respondents 2 and 3 as to whether any case is registered with respect to missing of the alleged detenue. Today, the learned Government Pleader submitted that, based on statement recorded from the 1^st petitioner, a crime was registered at Ernakulam Town North police station on 11.09.2018, under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act.

¶34

But, today when the case is taken up for consideration, the alleged detenue appeared in person before this court. He is also represented through a lawyer. When we interacted, the alleged detenue said that the allegations of financial transaction with the persons mentioned in the writ petition as well as the suspicion raised regarding illegal detention are absolutely baseless. According to the alleged detenue, he was abstaining from his home only because of some matrimonial issues existing with the 2^nd petitioner. He said that he was in Bangalore and came back to Cochin on today.

¶35

Under the above mentioned circumstances, we find that the allegations of illegal detention is not true and correct.

¶36

W.P.(Crl) No.357/2018

¶37

¶38

The alleged detenue is at the age of 32 and he was earlier working as a Teacher in a School. We do not find any materials to substantiate the allegations of illegal detention. Hence the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed by setting the alleged detenue at liberty.

¶39

It is left open to the petitioners to take appropriate measures to sort out the matrimonial issues if any pending between the 2^nd petitioner and the alleged detenue, through appropriate methods.

¶40

(sd/-)

¶41

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶42

(sd/-)

¶43

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶44

jsr

¶45

W.P.(Crl) No.357/2018

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF MESSAGES SENT BY DETENUE TO 2ND PETITIONER.

¶50

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶51

NIL

¶52

TRUE COPY

¶53

PS TO JUDGE

Aidron Olivera v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aidron Olivera v. 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

Akshara.a Vs Rohin S.Raveendran

Suresh Babu Vs Sajina

Sushama Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Prabhakaran Vs Sreekala S.K.

Divya J.Nair Vs S.K.Sreekanth

Mathew Jose Vs Jessy Joseph