Firoza.T.M. vs City Police Commissioner on 22 May, 2008

0
98
Kerala High Court
Firoza.T.M. vs City Police Commissioner on 22 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 154 of 2008(S)


1. FIROZA.T.M., W/O.NABBED ALIM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM.
                       ...       Respondent

2. S.I. OF POLICE, ALUVA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHANAVAS.S

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :22/05/2008

 O R D E R
                             P.R.RAMAN &
                 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ.
             -------------------------------
                 W.P.(Crl)NO.154 OF 2008
            --------------------------------
               Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008

                               JUDGMENT

Raman, J.

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to produce the body

of Nabbed Alim, aged 36 years, the husband of the petitioner, from the

custody of the respondents. It is alleged that her husband was taken

into custody by the 2nd respondent on 8/5/2008 at 10 p.m. and the

reasons are not disclosed. Representation (Ext.P1) made to the

Director General of Police did not evoke no response. Hence this writ

petition.

2. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent-Sub

Inspector of Police, Aluva. It is stated therein that the husband of the

petitioner is involved in other criminal cases. He was arrested on

13/5/2008 and was produced before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate’s Court-I, Perumbavoor on 14/5/2008. It is stated by the

learned Government Pleader that he has been remanded to the judicial

custody by order of the learned Magistrate. As such there is no illegal

custody as of now. However, the petitioner has a complaint that there

-2-
WP(Crl).No.154/2008

was a considerable delay in producing her husband before the court and

the allegations raised against the detenue are also denied. This being a

habeas corpus writ petition, we are not inclined to go into these

allegations. Hence, we close this writ petition without prejudice to the

right of the petitioner to raise such contentions before the appropriate

Magistrate’s Court.

P.R.RAMAN,
Judge.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
Judge.

kcv.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *