IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 124 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- NAFEESA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, KOLOTHPARAMBU HOUSE, VAROD AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERINTALMANNA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTALMANNA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.)No.124 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant, J. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner complaining that her son has been illegally detained by the police. According to the petitioner, her son was detained on 27.3.2010; but he was not produced before any Court till 31.3.2010. She had hence come before this Court with this petition on 31.3.2010. Notice was given to the respondents. Respondents took the stand that the petitioner's son was not taken into custody on 27.3.2010. He is a person who is allegedly involved in several offences and non-bailable warrants have been issued by various courts to procure his presence. Police was searching for the alleged detenu. But, they were not able to arrest him. In these circumstances, they denied the allegation that the petitioner's son was in illegal custody from 27.3.2010. 2. However, the respondents now admit and accept that the petitioner's son has been taken into custody on 5.4.2010. He W.P.(Crl.)No.124/10 -2- has been dealt with in accordance with law and has been produced before the Magistrate concerned. There is no illegal detention at all, it is asserted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner's son has been shown as arrested on 5.4.2010 and has subsequently been produced before the Magistrate in accordance with law. The whereabouts of the petitioner's son is thus ascertained now. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises a grievance that there has been illegal detention of the petitioner's son from 27.3.2010 to 5.4.2010. In these circumstances, appropriate directions may be issued, it is further prayed. 5. In this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are satisfied that it is not necessary to delve deeper into that controversy. The petitioner's son's whereabouts are now ascertained and he is said to be in judicial custody now. No further directions need be issued, we are satisfied, in this application for issue of a writ of habeas corpus. W.P.(Crl.)No.124/10 -3- 6. However, we may hasten to observe that the petitioner and her son shall be at liberty to raise the contention that he was in illegal custody from 27.3.2010 to 5.4.2010. The dismissal of this Writ Petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner or her son to initiate appropriate proceedings against the persons responsible for such alleged illegal detention from 27.3.2010 to 5.4.2010. That grievance can be raised before appropriate forum by the petitioner. We do not think it necessary to express any final opinion on that disputed question. 7. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. R. BASANT, JUDGE. M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn