Syamraj vs Jayakumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 12720 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                  &
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
      THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1943
                      WP(CRL.) NO. 144 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

                SYAMRAJ
0




                AGED 30 YEARS
                S/O.RAJAN, RESIDING AT KODIVILAKATHU
                PUTHANVEEDU, PULIPPARA, NEDUMANGAD P.O.,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541.

               BY ADVS.
               T.C.SURESH MENON (K/203/1993)-22453
               P.S.APPU
               S.R.ANEESH


RESPONDENTS:

     1            JAYAKUMAR
                  AGED 1 YEARS
                  S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT UTHRADAM,
                  PULIPPARA, NEDUMANGAD P.O.,
                  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541.

     2         ANILKUMAR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, RESIDNG AT
               PALUVALLI, PONGUMOODU, NANNIYODE P.O.,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

     3         THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
               NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, NEDUMANGAD P.O.,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541.

     4          DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                NEDUMANGAD, NEDUMANGAD P.O.,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541.

               BY SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY SR.G.P.



THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(Crl)No.144/2021                2

                             JUDGMENT

Gopinath, J:

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of

habeas corpus for the release of one Meenakshi from the alleged

illegal custody of the 1st respondent, who is her father and the 2 nd

respondent who is her paternal uncle. It is alleged in the writ petition

that the petitioner and the aforesaid Meenakshi were in love with each

other and her relatives who are opposing the relationship have kept

Meenakshi under illegal custody. Considering the averments in the writ

petition we thought it appropriate to interact with the aforesaid

Meenakshi who stated to be a major aged 19 years. Accordingly, we

have interacted with the aforesaid Meenakshi today through video

conferencing. It is her definite statement that she is a student studying

in an Industrial Training Institute at Thiruvananthapuram, that she

became acquainted with the petitioner, as the petitioner was running a

shop near her house, that she is not under the illegal custody of her

father or uncle as alleged and that the petitioner was harassing her by

threatening her that he will circulate her photographs on social media.

2. We heard Sri. P.S. Appu and Sri. S.R. Aneesh, learned

counsel who represented the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor

for the official respondents. We also interacted with the petitioner who

reiterated that he and the aforesaid Meenakshi were in love and that

she is under pressure from her father and other family members to

state to the contrary. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the father of the aforesaid Meenakshi is not a person of

good repute and further that his brother, the 2nd respondent is a

politically influential person.

3. A writ of habeas corpus will issue only if we find that the

alleged detention of any person is illegal for any reason whatsoever. In

our opinion, the aforesaid Meenakshi is very firm in her stand that she

is not under any illegal custody and that she is not under any pressure

from either her father or her uncle, the 2nd respondent. She is also firm

in her stand that she does not wish to have any sort of relationship with

the petitioner and that the petitioner had harassed her in the manner

indicated above. We see no reason to doubt the genuineness of the

statement made as aforesaid by Meenakshi. In the aforesaid

circumstances, the writ petition must necessarily fail. Accordingly, the

writ petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE AMG

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 13.5.2021.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE.