IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 514 of 2010(S)
1. ROY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.M.VEERAKUTTY, CHIRAPULLY HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :09/02/2011
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(CRL) No.514 of 2010-S
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 9th day of February, 2011
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
This writ of Habeas Corpus is filed seeking a direction to
respondents 2 and 3 to search the alleged detenu by name
Muhammadali who is a close friend of the petitioner and to produce him
before this Court and to set him at liberty.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner is a close friend of Muhammadali who is alleged to be under
the illegal detention of the Ist respondent. The Ist respondent is stated
to be the father-in-law of the alleged detenu. There are various
allegations made. It is inter alia stated that the alleged detenu has
filed an application for anticipatory bail and that the alleged detenu was
residing in a rented house and the Ist respondent and hired gundas
reached the rented house and assaulted the alleged detenu and
thereafter they abducted the alleged detenu.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by the Ist respondent
denying the allegations. The father of the alleged detenu has also
come forward and got himself impleaded as additional respondent.
WPCR 514/2010 -2-
4. A statement is filed stating that the alleged detenu is
undergoing treatment for mental illness at the Ideal Mind Care Hospital
at Vengola near Perumbavoor.
5. The petitioner had filed an application to depute an
Advocate Commission. We have deputed an Advocate Commission.
The Advocate Commissioner filed the report. Noticing discrepancies
we directed production of the alleged detenu. We interacted with the
alleged detenu. We also interacted with the Ist respondent and also
the father of the alleged detenu. We also heard the learned counsel
for the parties including the learned Government Pleader. Learned
counsel for the petitioner would point out certain discrepancies in the
report. According to him, the doctor in the report would say that the
alleged detenu does not require inpatient treatment and he can be
managed with meditation and entry in the record relating to the detenu
dated 8.1.2011 would show that it was the insistence of the father and
brother of the alleged detenu that the alleged detenu should continue
for two more months. From this he would point out that there is illegal
detention. He would further say that the manner in keeping the records
itself raises suspicion as the entry on 8.1.2011 comes after the entry
on 22.1.2011. We can not be oblivious of the fact that the alleged
detenu was admitted in a clinic and he was undergoing treatment. We
do not think that we can characterize this case as a case where a writ
WPCR 514/2010 -3-
of Habeas Corpus should be issued on the ground of illegal detention
of the alleged detenu and we could direct him to be set free. As to
whether the alleged detenu is fit for release or whether he should be
continued under treatment are matters to be decided by the Medical
expert under whose supervision the alleged detenu is being treated. It
is for the doctor to decide having regard to all facts and circumstances
whether the detenu is to be released or not. It may not be appropriate
for the writ Court in its Habeas Corpus jurisdiction in the facts of this
case and particularly at this juncture of time to direct release of the
alleged detenu. In such circumstances we decline to issue further
directions in this matter and we close this case. However, we make it
clear that it may be open to the petitioner if he is so advised and
circumstance so warrants to approach this Court in the matter.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS