IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 424 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VELAYUDHAN, S/O.KUNJATHAN, VALLATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLUR DESOM MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SANTHA, W/O.VELAYUDHAN, DO, DO, DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THRISSUR. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE IRINJALAKUDA. 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIJAYAVADA DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH. 5. BHAVANI, BALAJI NAGAR, NELLORE DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH. ADDL.R6 & R7 IMPLEADED ADDL R6: THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA, ANDRAPRADESH. ADDLR7: THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH. ADDL.R6 & R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.12.2009 IN I.A.No.15669/09) BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR R1 TO R4, R6 & R7 ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR R5 SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.)No.424 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed by us in this case resting with the order dated 14.12.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the alleged detenue are taking steps to claim police protection. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that some further time may be granted to the 5th respondent to seek appropriate reliefs. 2. We have already adverted to the matter in detail in the order dated 2.12.2009. The alleged detenue has been traced and he is now residing along with the petitioners. The 5th respondent was accommodated at the Santhinikethan Hostel for reasons which are given in the order dated 2.12.2009. We are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this Writ Petition. The 5th respondent through her counsel prays that she who is at present accommodated at the Santhinikethan Hostel may be permitted to shift her residence to a paying guest accommodation at Kaloor which she has secured. She is not under any orders passed by this Court obliged to remain in the Santhinikethan Hostel. Accepting her request and considering her W.P.(Crl.)No.424/09 -2- plight, she was permitted to be accommodated there. We accordingly opine that it shall be open to the 5th respondent to leave the said Hostel and shift to a paying guest accommodation which she claims that she has secured. 3. We are satisfied now that no further directions are necessary in this Writ Petition and further proceedings in this Writ Petition can now be discontinued. 4. In the result: (a) this Writ Petition is allowed in part. (b) the alleged detenue who has appeared before Court and who is now continuing to reside with the petitioners is set at liberty and shall be free to pursue whatever course he feels is necessary and advantageous to him. (c) The 5th respondent who has been directed to be accommodated at the Santhinikethan Hostel is permitted to leave that Hostel with effect from today(i.e., 22.12.2009). Hand over copy to both counsel. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn W.P.(Crl.)No.424/09 -3- R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.)No.424 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 O R D E R Basant, J. Facts can be stranger than fiction, but it is difficult always to swallow that statement. Facts of the instant case suggest that even that statement can be understatement. 2. The petitioners are parents of a young man aged 34 years, Santhosh by name. He is an educated person. He is well employed. He has remained married for about three years. The couple have not been blessed with any child so far. 3. While so, as usual, he went in connection with his work from his house on 9.9.2009. He returned for a short while on 12.9.2009 and left his home promising his parents that he will come back later. The petitioners, the parents of Santhosh are respectively a retired Head Constable and a retired School Teacher. They found that Santhosh was not returning at all. Doubts gave way to anxiety and the unfortunate petitioners started desperately attempting to trace their son. While so, W.P.(Crl.)No.424/09 -4- they received a letter written by the 5th respondent in which she has mentioned that their son is available with her, offering protection to her who on account of various circumstances had contemplated suicide and Santhosh had come to her as a savior to rescue her from her predicament. The 5th respondent is a married woman. She has two grown up children aged 14 years and 10 years. Her husband is respectably employed. He is stated to be an Inspector of Customs and Central Excise at Vijayawada. They had got married in 1993. The petitioners came to know that a crime has been registered at Vijayawada alleging that their son had kidnapped the 5th respondent. Not only officials of the police, but also persons of questionable character, goondas and ruffians according to the petitioners, were harassing the petitioners making efforts to trace their son and the 5th respondent. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners came to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce their son Santhosh. They apprehend that their son was being detained by some persons interested in the 5th respondent or perhaps by the 5th respondent herself. 4. This petition was filed on 20.10.2009. It was admitted W.P.(Crl.)No.424/09 -5- on 21.10.2009. This order must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed, resting with the order dated 30.11.2009. 5. Today when the case is called, petitioners along with their counsel are present. The 5th respondent and the alleged detenu have come before this Court. The 5th respondent is represented by a counsel. When the case was called in the morning, Adv.Shri Rajesh Chakiat represented before Court that he wants to file an application on behalf of the brother and husband of the 5th respondent. The learned counsel represented in Court that they only want to know whether the 5th respondent is illegally detained by the alleged detenu or anyone else. The learned counsel represented in Court that if the 5th respondent states that she does not want to return with her relatives - her brother, husband, etc. they have no objection against the 5th respondent continuing with the alleged detenu. In Court the 5th respondent stated that she does not want to speak to them at all. The alleged detenu as also the 5th respondent expressed apprehensions before Court that they may be attacked and whisked away by her relatives who according to them have the support and assistance of the police as also goonda gangs. The W.P.(Crl.)No.424/09 -6- learned counsel Shri Rajesh Chakiat was requested to file a proper application, if he wants to seek any orders from the Court. Subsequently, the learned counsel has not appeared before Court. Along with the counsel, some persons were found present in the Court. The 5th respondent identifies those persons to be her husband and her brother with some others. 6. As the alleged detenu comes along with the 5th respondent, we wanted the alleged detenu to be left alone so that he can give his genuine response to us uninfluenced by anyone when we interact with him. The petitioners, the parents of the alleged detenu requested and were permitted to have interactions with the alleged detenu while he was permitted to remain in the Chamber. 7. After lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenu separately initially. Thereafter, we interacted with his parents, the petitioners and later we interacted with him in the presence of the 5th respondent also. Counsel for the petitioners, the 5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader were also present when such interactions went on. 8. The alleged detenu has a weird version to advance. W.P.(Crl.)No.424/09 -7- According to him, he did not know the 5th respondent at all. In his telephone, there was a facility to “find a friend”. Using that facility, in September, 2009 he came to interact with the 5th respondent, a total stranger at Vijayawada. The 5th respondent had several pathetic personal problems, according to the alleged detenu. The alleged detenu took pity on the helpless position of the 5th respondent. They had frequent interactions over telephone. On one occasion, the alleged detenu travelled along with the 5th respondent between Nelloor and Vijayawada. According to the alleged detenu, he had taken pity on the plight of the 5th respondent and his intention was only to save her. She needed protection from her relatives and he is giving her that protection. According to him, but for such protection offered by him at the required time, the 5th respondent may have chosen to end her life. He feels morally obliged to continue to give her such protection. According to him, his parents as well as his wife shall understand him perfectly and he has no improper relationship whatsoever with the 5th respondent at all. If she wants to return to Vijayawada with her relatives, he has no objection, but he feels that, that may endanger the life of the 5th respondent. In these W.P.(Crl.)No.424/09 -8- circumstances, he feels obliged to continue to give her necessary support and protection. He airs the apprehension that he and the 5th respondent may be done away with by the relatives of the 5th respondent and hirelings acting on their behalf. In these circumstances, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to order protection to the alleged detenu and the 5th respondent. He is willing to return along with his parents. But, both his parents and he himself apprehend that harm may be caused to him and them if they return to their native place at Irinjalakuda. 9. The 5th respondent reiterates the version given by the alleged detenu. She prays that she may at least be permitted to seek shelter in any place where her safety can be assured. She may be sent to any hostel or any Government institution where she will not be harassed, threatened or intimidated, submits the 5th respondent. 10. The parents of the alleged detenu, the petitioners herein have a tale of woes to narrate. According to them, the alleged detenu has chosen to offer assistance to the 5th respondent when she was facing a crisis. But for that they and their other relatives are being harassed by the police, muscle men and W.P.(Crl.)No.424/09 -9- hirelings engaged by the relatives of the 5th respondent, who they apprehend have the protection and patronage of the police themselves. 11. The learned Government Pleader submits that instructions have been obtained from the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent asserts that not the 4th respondent, but the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City has to be impleaded. However, it is stated clearly that a crime has been registered regarding the disappearance of the 5th respondent as Crime No.511/09 of Pattamatta Police Station, Vijayawada, Andra Pradesh. The learned Government Pleader submits that the appropriate party has to be impleaded in this Writ Petition to enable the learned Government Pleader to take instructions from such Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that some time may be granted to the petitioners to take necessary steps. Till then, appropriate orders may be passed to ensure the protection of the petitioners as also the alleged detenu and the 5th respondent. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent also reiterates the request that the 5th respondent may be afforded the requisite protection until this Writ W.P.(Crl.)No.424/09 -10- Petition is disposed of. 12. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We accept the request of the learned Government Pleader that she may be permitted to take instructions from the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City after he is properly brought on record. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, we are satisfied that the matter requires to be probed into further. The relatives of the 5th respondent who had appeared before Court this morning must also be given opportunity to make their submissions, if any. We are satisfied that the case can be adjourned to another date to enable the parties to take all necessary steps. 13. This case is hence posted to 14.12.2009. All necessary steps shall be taken by the parties by that date. The following directions are issued, which shall occupy the field till the matter is taken up for consideration again on 14.12.2009. (i) The alleged detenu Santhosh is permitted to return along with petitioners 1 and 2 as desired by all the three of them. The learned Government Pleader undertakes and specific directions are hereby issued to the second W.P.(Crl.)No.424/09 -11- respondent, the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur to ensure that adequate police protection is given to the petitioners and the alleged detenu to reside peacefully in their house at Vallattuparambil House, pullur Desom, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District. During this period, though the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Irinjalakuda, the 3rd respondent shall be permitted to question the petitioners as also the alleged detenu at such residence of theirs, they will not be arrested or otherwise dealt with, without prior permission of this Court. (ii) The 5th respondent shall be accommodated at the Santhinikethan Hostel, Pachalam, Ernakulam till 14.12.2009, as requested by her. The learned Government Pleader undertakes that and it is directed that the Commissioner of Police, Kochi City shall ensure adequate protection for her for her peaceful residence at Santhinikethan Hostel, Pachalam. She shall not be arrested or taken W.P.(Crl.)No.424/09 -12- into custody by anyone, without the prior permission of this Court. However, we make it clear that in connection with the investigation of any pending case, she can be questioned by the police at the said Hostel, after taking the permission of the Hostel authorities. (iii) In the light of the specific apprehensions expressed by the petitioners as well as the alleged detenu and the 5th respondent that they anticipate harm at the hands of the relatives of the 5th respondent and their hirelings, specific directions are issued to the second respondent, Superintendent of Police, Thrissur and the Commissioner of Police, Kochi City to ensure that they are given adequate and sufficient protection. (iv) The learned Government Pleader shall ensure that the petitioners and the alleged detenu are escorted by police officials to their place of residence. The 5th respondent shall also be W.P.(Crl.)No.424/09 -13- escorted to the Santhinikethan Hostel by the police. 14. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the expenses for accommodation in the hostel till 14.12.2009 shall be met by the 5th respondent. 15. Towards the close of this dictation, the learned counsel Shri Rajesh Chakiat appears before Court and submits that the husband of the 5th respondent and her brother who had wanted the counsel to make the representations before Court when the case was called in the morning now submits that they do not now want to make any such applications. 16. Hand over copy of this order to the learned Government Pleader for immediate communication to the 2nd respondent and the Commissioner of Police. 17. Call on 14.12.2009. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn