Wednesday, 15, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ubais vs The Superintendent Of Police
2024 Latest Caselaw 10719 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10719 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Ubais vs The Superintendent Of Police on 12 April, 2024

Author: Raja Vijayaraghavan

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
                               &
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
   FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
                   WP(CRL.) NO. 222 OF 2024
 PETITIONER:

            UBAIS
            AGED 28 YEARS
            S/O ABDUL SAMAD, CHALIL HOUSE,
            KAKKATTIL VAZHI, AROOR P.O,
            PURAMERI PANCHAYATH,
            KOZHIKODE,PIN - 673507

            BY ADV SUJA PADNABAN PILLAI


 RESPONDENTS:

      1     THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
            OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676504

      2     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
            PIN - 676302

      3     MUHAMMED SAKEER. K
            AGED 55 YEARS
            KOLAKKUNNATH(H),PANANGATTOOR(PO),
            CHANCHERI PARAMB, TANUR,
            MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676302

            BY ADVS.
            PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
            DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-10)
            SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. TO DGP AND ADDL. P.P. ()


 OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP.



THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
  WP (Crl.) No.222 of 2024                  2



                                  JUDGMENT

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the issuance of a

writ of Habeus Corpus to produce the corpus 'Miss X' for the sake of

brevity before this Court.

2. According to the petitioner, he is working in a private

establishment in Kozhikode. He fell in love with the daughter of the 3rd

respondent and they decided to get married. According to the petitioner,

Miss X is an adult lady and despite expressing her wish, her parents are

opposing the relationship. It is further stated that the girl is kept under

house arrest. His prayer is to set her at liberty.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up, the corpus has appeared

before us. She stated that the petitioner is doing a direct marketing

business and they got in touch. By stating one reason or the other, he

gained the confidence of Miss X who is only 19 years of age. By persuading

her, 3 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken from her possession. She

states that she was defrauded by the petitioner and she is very much

attached to her family. She also stated that she is not under

illegal detention. She stated that it is against her wishes that the

petitioner had persuaded her to cause the issuance of a notice under the

Special Marriage Act.

4. We have also interacted with the petitioner. He initially

refused to accede to the accusation made by Miss. X that he had accepted

gold ornaments from her. Later, he admitted that he had taken the gold

ornaments and had pledged it with the Manappuram Finance, Malappuram

Branch. He undertook before us that he shall return the gold ornaments to

the Station House Officer of the Tanur Police Station within ten days from

today.

5. We have considered the submissions advanced. After having

interacted with the alleged detenu and the petitioner, we are shocked to

note the manner in which Miss X was duped by the petitioner. She stated

before us that she had occasion to see the petitioner only on a couple of

occasions. The petitioner has taken advantage of the gullible nature and

innocence of Miss. X. Be that as it may, she has stated before us in

unmistakable terms that she is not under illegal detention.

6. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Kanu Sanyal1

had dealt with the nature and scope of a writ of habeas corpus and it was

observed as under in para 4 of the judgment;

Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling [(1973) 2 SCC 674]

"4. It will be seen from this brief history of habeas corpus that it is essentially a procedural writ. It deals with the machinery of justice, not the substantive law. The object of the writ is to secure release of a person who is illegally restrained of his liberty. The writ is, no doubt, a command addressed to a person who is alleged to have another person unlawfully in his custody requiring him to bring the body of such person before the court, but the production of the body of the person detained is directed in order that the circumstances of his detention may be inquired into, or to put it differently, 'in order that appropriate judgment be rendered on judicial inquiry into the alleged unlawful restraint'. The form of the writ employed is 'We command you that you have in the King's Bench Division of our High Court of Justice -- immediately after the receipt of this our writ, the body of A.B. being taken and detained under your custody -- together with the day and cause of his being taken and detained -- to undergo and receive all and singular such matters and things as our court shall then and there consider of concerning him in this behalf'. The italicised words show that the writ is primarily designed to give a person restrained of his liberty a speedy and effective remedy for having the legality of his detention enquired into and determined and if the detention is found to be unlawful, having himself discharged and freed from such restraint. The most characteristic element of the writ is its peremptoriness and, as pointed out by Lord Halsbury, L.C. in Cox v. Hakes [(1890) 15 AC 506] , 'the essential and leading theory of the whole procedure is the immediate determination of the right to the applicant's freedom' and his release if the detention is found to be unlawful. That is the primary purpose of the writ; that is its substance and end.

7. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the

reliefs sought. We record the undertaking of the petitioner that he shall

return the gold ornaments to the SHO, Tanur Police Station on or before

22.4.2024.

This Writ Petition is closed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

Sd/-

P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

APM/12/4/24

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 222/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P 1 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 20.11.2004 ISSUED BY THIRURANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH

Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLUS TWO CERTIFICATE BEARING REG.NO. 9311457 DATED 21.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATIONS

Exhibit -P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.02.2024 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter