IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(Crl.).No. 24 of 2008(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.MUHAMMED, KUTTIKKAL HOUSE, REKKANDI, PANNIYANKARA P.O. VADAKKENCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: ----------- 1. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERPULLASSERI POLICE STATION. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERPULASSERI POLICE STATION. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 6. DETENU ------- HABEEB, S/O.HYDRU, KUTTIKKAL HOUSE, REKKANDI, PANNIYANKARA P.O., VADAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & V. K. MOHANAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(CRL) NO. 24 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner complains that his brother's son Habeeb is kept under illegal custody by the first Respondent on the suspicion of having committed theft. According to the petitioner, first respondent however, did not give any information or details in spite of repeated request in this behalf made by him. It is further alleged that the detenue was not produced before the Magistrate Court within 24 hours of arrest as required by law. Petitioner then approached the Magistrate court by filing a petition under section 97 of the code of Criminal Procedure. Ext.P1 is the copy of the said petition. Remarks were called for from the second respondent and a direction was issued to the first respondent to file an affidavit. But no affidavit is filed by the first respondent and the case was posted to 15.1.2008. In the meanwhile, Respondents 1 and 2 shifted the detenue to some other police station anticipating visit by the Advocate Commissioner. Later, petitioner came to know that his son is under the illegal custody of Respondents 3 and 4 at Mannarkkad Police Station. Enquiries made with the third respondent as to why the detenue was kept under custody was however not favourably responded. According to the petitioner, the detenue is subjected to torture by the respondents. Hence he seeks for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the body of Habeeb, before this court and release him from their illegal custody. 2. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the contention raised in WPCR 24/08 :2: view of the fact the 5th respondent has filed a report. As the matter stands, the detenue has been released by the Magistrate Court and therefore, there is no substantial cause for issuing any writ of habeas corpus at this stage. The grievance of the petitioner regarding the alleged action on the part of the police in taking him into custody and keeping him in one police station or other without being produced before any magistrate court and torture in custody are matters on which he could seek other remedies before appropriate forum - even before the Human Rights Commission or before the Magistrate's court - in which event we have no doubt in our mind that such forum competent to go into the question, after taking evidence, will consider such request and pass orders in accordance with law. Subject to the above observation the writ petition is closed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) V. K. MOHANAN, (JUDGE) knc/-