1 3477.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3477 OF 2010 Mr.Joseph Bernardo Nazareth ...Petitioner Versus The Senior Inspector of Police & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Subodh Desai for Petitioner. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for Respondent/State. Ms.Punita Arora for Respondent No.4. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 10, 2010. P.C. 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ of Habeas Corpus is prayed against the Respondents to direct them to produce Ms.Paulita D’Souza before the Court. According to the Petitioner, the said Ms.Paulita D’Souza is under illegal detention and confinement kept by Respondent Nos.4 to 7. The Petitioner seeks further direction against Respondents 1 to 3 to register FIR in relation to the allegation of illegal detention and confinement of said Ms.Paulita D’Souza. The reliefs claimed 2 3477.10.sxw in this Petition in that sense are overlapping. The primary relief with which we are concerned is for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus for production of Ms.Paulita D’Souza . 2. Pursuant to our order dated 8th December, 2010, the Police Officials of Santacruz Police Station have traced Ms.Paulita D’Souza and found her from St.Paul’s Jeevan Darshan Sanstha situated at Vasai. She is produced before us by A.P.I. Mr.Chavan of Santacruz Police Station. We have interviewed her as well as the Respondents 6 and 7. 3. From the version of Ms.Paulita D’Souza, we are convinced that her well being is presently being looked after by Respondents 6 and 7 and Respondent No.7 in particular, who is associated with St.Paul’s Jeevan Darshan Sanstha. Consequent to production of Ms.Paulita D’Souza, in our opinion, the reliefs claimed in this Petition are worked out. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner or for that matter, the neighbours of Ms.Paulita D’Souza namely; Lily Desouza, Julie Fernandes and Louise Crasto, who are incidentally present in Chamber, if any, regarding the sudden change of mind of Ms.Paulita D’Souza cannot be gone into in the 3 3477.10.sxw present proceedings. Ms.Lily Desouza claims that besides being neighbour, she was always closely associated with Ms.Paulita D’Souza, as she was also her teacher. 5. We may place on record that while interviewing Ms.Paulita D’Souza, we found her to be absolutely coherent. She made a very categoric statement that recently when she was in Mahavir Hospital, some persons walked into her room and obtained her signature on some document which she could not read or understand, on the assurance that the same is required to be presented before the Court pertaining to some eviction proceedings listed before the Court on 10th December, 2010. This incident according to her had happened on 8th December, 2010. As aforesaid, it is not necessary for us to go into the correctness of any other allegations or grievances or suggestions made by either party, save and except to ascertain that said Mr.Paulita D’Souza was in illegal detention or custody of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 or otherwise 6. Suffice it to observe that Ms.Paulita D’Souza is produced before us. She has stated that she was staying with Respondents 6 and 7 at her own sweet will. Further, she is being properly looked after by them. Besides, the 4 3477.10.sxw Respondents 6 and 7, who are also present before us, have assured us that they are willing to look after the said Ms.Paulita D’Souza. In our opinion, therefore, the matter can be disposed of by leaving all options open, with liberty to the respective parties to take recourse to such other remedies as may be permissible in law, which will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 7. We may also place on record the objection taken by Counsel for the Petitioner regarding the appearance made by Ms.Punita Arora, who, according to the Petitioner is espousing the cause of Respondent No.4-the builder against whom allegations are made by the Petitioner in the present Petition. It is not necessary for us to examine this grievance in the present proceedings. Even this aspect can be considered in appropriate proceedings, if and when occasion arises. 8. The Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being one of the close relative of said Ms.Paulita D’Souza , the Respondents 6 and 7 be directed to ensure that as and when the Petitioner or for that matter, the abovenamed neighbours of Ms.Paulita D’Souza intend to meet her, they should not be obstructed in any manner. There is no resistance to this 5 3477.10.sxw request by Respondents 6 and 7. They have no objection if the Petitioner or the neighbours were to meet the said Ms.Paulita D’Souza during the reasonable hours, subject however, to the wishes of Ms.Paulita D’Souza. 9. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (V.M.KANADE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)