IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(Crl.).No. 42 of 2008(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KADEEJA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.KUNJAMUTTY, PALLIYALI HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM, A.R.NAGAR DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGARA. 5. RAFI, S/O.KUNJAMUTTY, AGED 25 YEARS, PALLIYALI HOUSE, A.R.NAGAR, TIRURANGADI. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(CRL).42/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 2/2/2008. P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(Crl)NO.42 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. The complaint made in this writ petition is that the 5th respondent, son of the petitioner, was taken into custody by the 4th respondent presumably under the orders of the 3rd respondent on 30/1/2008 at about 9 p.m. from the Medical College Hospital, Calicut where the petitioner's husband was treated. Thereafter, the whereabouts of the detenu were not known. It is submitted that when an arrest is made, the Police Officer is bound to produce the detenu within 24 hours of arrest before the competent Magistrate; but the detenu was not produced as contemplated by law. Though Ext.P1 complaint was made before the 2nd respondent, no enquiry was made into the allegation and no action was taken. In the circumstances, the petitioner prays for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to produce the body of the 5th respondent and to release him. A memo was filed by the Government Pleader producing a statement by the Superintendent of Police, in which it is stated that the petitioner had filed a petition -2- WP(Crl).No.42/08 before him on 2/2/2008 and the matter was enquired into and revealed that Crime No.250/07 was registered against him under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC by the Vengara Police Station on the strength of the complaint made by one Abdul Salam. The detenu, Rafi is the 2nd accused in the above crime. Investigation is being conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the police station, Vengara. A1, A3 and A5 were arrested and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malappuram. As far as the alleged detenu is concerned, he was arrested by the Sub Inspector of Police on 2/2/2008 at 22.00 hours and after complying with all the formalities of arrest, he was produced before the Magistrate's Court, Nilambur on 3/2/2008 and the Magistrate has remanded the accused to the judicial custody. This is the substance of the report. In the facts and circumstances, when there is already a case registered against the 2nd accused and he was produced before the Magistrate's Court and he was remanded to judicial custody, the petitioner has necessarily to move the said Magistrate's Court for appropriate relief in accordance with law. The allegation that the alleged detenue was arrested not on 2/2/2008; but on 30/1/2008, on the basis of the report and in the absence of further materials, is not substantiated. However, it is -3- WP(Crl).No.42/08 open to the petitioner to prove his contention and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law from other Forums, as this is a matter which has to be established by evidence and we do not think that we should go into such allegations in a writ of habeas corpus petition. Subject to the right of the petitioner as stated above, this writ petition is closed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.