Dismissed

Radha, v. District Police Chief

Kerala HC7 Nov 2018WP(Crl.)/424/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition filed by two sisters seeking habeas corpus for their brother Sivan, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition. After enquiries revealed the detenue was a person with mental illness who wandered and was not under illegal confinement, the court found no basis for the writ and dismissed it with liberty reserved.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus was dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioners.

Radha, Vs District Police Chief — 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

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018/ 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶6

WP(Crl.).No. 424 of 2018

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 RADHA, AGED 60 YEARS W/O.RAJU, LAKKUTHINIYIL HOUSE, VAYALA P.O., ELAKKADU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2 VIJAYAMMA, AGED 56 YEARS W/O.LATE MANIYAN, NEDUMTHOTTI HOUSE, KANJIRATHANAM P.O., KOTHANELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SMT.PRASEENA ELIZABETH JOSEPH SRI.PRAFIN JOSEPH ZACHARIA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 001.

¶13

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686114.

¶14

3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686114.

¶15

4 LEELA, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. THAMPI, NEDUMTHOTTI HOUSE, KANJIRATHANAM P.O., KOTHANELLOOR VILLAGE- 686119.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR.GP.SRI. K.B.RAMANAND

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(Crl) No.424 /2018

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

C.K. ABDUL REHIM &

¶22

T.V. ANILKUMAR, JJ.

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(Crl) No. 424 OF 2018 S

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2018

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Abdul Rehim, J.

¶29

Two sisters of a person named 'Sivan' who is aged 65 years, are the petitioners herein, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for commanding production of the corpus of Sri.Sivan (hereinafter referred to as 'the alleged detenue'), and to set him at liberty.

¶30

It is mentioned that the alleged detenue is a chronic

¶31

bachelor, who was residing with the 4^th respondent, who is none

¶32

other than another sister of the petitioners and the alleged detenue. It is stated that, the petitioners were not in the habit of

¶33

visiting the house of the 4^th respondent. Recently, on 03.10.2018, the petitioners visited the house of the 4^th

¶34

W.P.(Crl) No.424 /2018

¶35

-:3:-

¶36

respondent, after attending the funeral of an uncle of both the parties. At that time, the alleged detenue was not available in

¶37

the house of the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent could not given any proper explanation with respect to the whereabouts of the alleged detenue, is the allegation. The petitioners further alleges that, some of the neighbours in the locality of the 4^th respondent's house stated that, the alleged detenue was taken by four healthy people in a jeep, few months back. But no one knows anything about the whereabouts of the alleged detenue thereafter. Making an allegation that the 4^th respondent is illegally detaining the alleged detenue, the above writ petition is filed.

¶38

When the case came up for admission, this court directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions from respondents 1 to 3. Today, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 2^nd respondent that, the enquiries conducted had revealed that the alleged detenue was

¶39

W.P.(Crl) No.424 /2018

¶40

-:4:-

¶41

a convict in a murder case, with respect to the murder of his father. He had undergone imprisonment for a period of nine years. After release from jail, he was residing with the 4^th respondent along with their mother Smt.Karthiyani, who died during the year 2009. Enquiries revealed that, the alleged detenue is a person used to wander around, having some sort of mental illness. Enquiry conducted with the 4^th respondent had revealed that, the alleged detenue had left the house of the 4^th respondent during the year 2009 and thereafter there is no information about him. The 2^nd respondent had categorically denied receipt of any complaint from the petitioners, as that of Ext.P1. According to respondents 2 and 3, the alleged detenue is a person having some mental illness, who used to wander around and his whereabouts are not known at present.

¶42

From the circumstances revealed as above, it is evident that the alleged detenue is not under illegal confinement of the 4^th respondent, as alleged. If the petitioners have got a

¶43

W.P.(Crl) No.424 /2018

¶44

-:5:-

¶45

case that the alleged detenue, who is their brother, is missing, it

¶46

is left open to them to lodge appropriate complaint before the police authorities and to set the Police into action for tracing out

¶47

the missing person. Since we do not find any basis for the allegation of illegal detention, this court is of the opinion that the jurisdiction vested on this court cannot be invoked for issuance of any writ of Habeas Corpus.

¶48

Therefore, reserving liberty to the petitioners as mentioned above, the above writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶49

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

¶50

Sd/- T.V. ANILKUMAR, JUDGE .

ul/-

[True copy]

P.S. to Judge.

W.P.(Crl) No.424 /2018

¶55

-:6:-

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1

¶59

TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION ON 10.10.2018.

Radha, v. District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha, v. District 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

Muraleedharan Nair @ Santhosh Vs Abitha K.S.

Nithya Anand Vs Anish Vijayan

Jayakumar Vs Bindhu

Jayan.R Vs the State of Kerala

Mary George Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Kumar D Vs Sreedevi A.P