IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 80 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ANWAR HUSSAIN, S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 26 YEARS, FIRDAUS MANZIL, MOSODI, UPPALA P.O. KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.K.L.LAKSHMI RANI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), KOZHIKODE. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKARA CIRCLE, VADAKARA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKARA POLICE STATION, VADAKARA. 4. SURENDRAN, MANIMANDIRAM, PUNCHIRIMILL, CHORODU P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH FOR R4 SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(CRL.) NO.80 OF 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER WRITTEN BY SONA TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER WRITTEN BY SONA TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER WRITTEN BY SONA TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER WRITTEN BY SONA TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER WRITTEN BY SONA TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER WRITTEN BY SONA TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER WRITTEN BY SONA TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P8(A),(B),(C),(D),(E) PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER WITH SONA EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENDED MARRIAGE U/SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954 DATED 22.1.2010 / TRUE COPY / K.M.Joseph & M.L. Joseph Francis, JJ. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(Crl.) No.80 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M.Joseph, J. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of the body of Sona. 2. Today, the alleged detenu is produced before us. We interacted with the petitioner, the alleged detenu, fourth respondent/father of the alleged detenu and also the relative of the petitioner. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent. 4. The alleged detenu states that she is not under any detention and that she would like to go with her father, the fourth respondent. We do not think that the petitioner has made out a case. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. K.M.Joseph, Judge M.L. Joseph Francis, Judge vns