Kerala High Court
Xxxxxx vs State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(CRL.) NO. 166 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADV SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT KERALA
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KAZHAKOOTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANTHAPURAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695583
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
4 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
5 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
SRI R.N.SANDEEP R3&R4
SMT.KEERTHI VIJAYAN R3&R4
W.P(Crl) No.166 of 2021
-2-
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1&R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl) No.166 of 2021
-3-
K.Vinod Chandran & Ziyad Rahman A.A., JJ.
------------------------------------------
W.P(Crl) No.166 of 2021
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th August, 2021
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
The petitioner alleged that his son is in the
illegal custody of the 3rd respondent. We directed the
Police to get a statement from the alleged detenu who was
staying along with the 3rd respondent. The statement
indicated the allegation made in the writ petition to be
true and the 3rd respondent having certain mental issues.
The detenu submitted that he lost his job by reason of the
3rd respondent who had literally confined him to the
apartment in which they were living together. The Police
also reported that the 3rd respondent was excessively
attached to and very possessive of the detenu. There were
also references of suicidal tendency having been displayed
by the 3rd respondent.
2. We directed the 3rd respondent and the detenu to
be produced before the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram. The CJM very
alertly directed the presence of a Psychiatrist and also
provided service of an Advocate, to the 3rd respondent, as
W.P(Crl) No.166 of 2021
obtained from the District Legal Services Authority.
Interactions were carried out singly and jointly with the
3rd respondent and the detenu, which were recorded, the copy
of which were transmitted to us. The Psychiatrist who was
present through out the interaction and participated in the
same, recommended institutional treatment for the 3rd
respondent. The detenu hence accompanied the 3rd respondent
to the Mental Health Centre, Peroorkada on direction issued
by the CJM and from there he was left to accompany his
parents. The 3rd respondent accompanied by her aunt; who was
impleaded as the additional 4th respondent in the writ
petition, after consultation at the Mental Health Centre
refused to be admitted for institutional treatment.
3. We initially directed the detenu not to leave
Thiruvananthapuram, only anticipating that the 3rd
respondent may require his presence, at least occasionally
to wean her away from the excessive attachment cultivated.
However, the 3rd respondent having refused institutional
treatment, on a request made by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner we directed that he could leave
Thiruvananthapuram but restrained him from leaving the
jurisdiction of the State by order dated 14.07.2021. We also
impleaded him as the additional 5th respondent.
W.P(Crl) No.166 of 2021
4. After notice was served on the 3rd and 4th
respondents by the SHO, Kazhakootam Police Station, Adv.
Sri.Renju Mohan appeared for the respondents 3 and 4. A
report from the CJM in charge was also placed before us
which enclosed a letter of the Superintendent, Mental Health
Centre informing that though a detailed assessment was
planned on 15.07.2021 the 3rd respondent did not turn up.
We specifically directed 3rd respondent to file an affidavit
indicating the Psychiatrist she is consulting, within ten
days on 23.08.2021. On 03.08.2021 the Counsel, who earlier
proposed to appear, recused for reason of his formal
engagement by execution of a vakalath having not come through.
5. Today Sri. Sandeep R.N, Advocate appears for
the respondents 3 and 4. The learned Counsel appearing for
the respondents 3 and 4 submits that the 3rd respondent is
taking private consultation and she is willing to file an
affidavit indicating the details. Considering the scope of
the writ petition, we are of the opinion that further
proceedings can be left to the CJM Thiruvananthapuram. The
affidavit disclosing the details of the treatment, the 3rd
respondent is subjected to, shall be placed before the CJM.
The CJM shall proceed in accordance with law. The
restriction placed by us on the 5th respondent, not to leave
W.P(Crl) No.166 of 2021
the jurisdiction of the State has also been vacated by order
dated 03.08.2021. The writ petition is disposed of,
recording the release of the detenu, the 5 th respondent, but
however making it clear that the Registry will not issue
certified copy of the judgment or that of the records to any
3rd party. The records of the case including the judgment
displayed in the official website shall only be after
smudging/masking of the names of the parties herein; ie: the
petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5.
Before we leave the matter, we wish to place on
record our appreciation for the excellent work done by the
learned CJM, Thiruvananthapuram who handled the sensitive
task we entrusted her, with thoughtful foresight, earnest
diligence and a balanced practical approach which is all the
more essential in such matters where mental issues of
litigants come to the fore.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran,
Judge
Sd/-
Ziyad Rahman A.A.,
Judge
jma/-
