Kerala High Court
Muhammed Salih A.K vs The Commissioner Of Police on 6 June, 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
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 555 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SALIH A.K.
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. KOYMON, RESIDING AT ARAKKAL HOUSE,
VATTEKKAD POST THRISSUR, PIN - 680512
BY ADVS.
MITHUN P.
MOHAMED AMJAD K.M
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
KOCHI CITY, PARK VIEW, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682011
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, PALARIVATTOM
JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025
3 SAMUEL
RESIDING AT PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ST. VINCENT
DE-PAUL CONVENT ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682025
4 THE DIRECTOR,
JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,P.B. NO.
737,THRISSUR-680005 ADDL.R4 IS SUO MOTU
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.05.24 IN
WP(CRL.)
5 KUNJUMON A.J. ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
S/O JOSEPH, ADIMURI HOUSE, PONOTH LANE, 7TH
AVENUE, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, ( SOUGHT TO BE
IMPLEADED )
BY ADVS.
K.AMAR RAGH K
2
WP (Crl). No. 555 of 2024
JOEMON ANTONY
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI P M SHAMEER, GP, SRI SHERRY J THOMAS, FOR RESP 5,
SRI ANTONY NILTON FOR RESP 4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
3
WP (Crl). No. 555 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a
Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the Ms. X (name withheld for privacy
reasons), before this Court and to set her at liberty.
2. The petitioner states that Ms.X is a married woman and she
is the mother of a child. According to the petitioner, he has a close
acquaintance with Ms. X. During their conversations, he was told that
Ms.X had been subjected to domestic abuse by her husband. Though,
Ms.X complained before the police, no action was taken. It is stated that
though Ms.X used to contact the petitioner constantly through social
media, he has not been receiving any messages from her for quite some
time. He has produced before this Court, a screenshot of a messages
sent to the petitioner by Ms. X and a voice clip to substantiate that Ms. X
is under illegal detention.
3. When the matter came up for consideration on 27.05.2024,
we directed respondents 1 and 2 to despatch a Women Police Officer to
ascertain as to whether the detenu is under illegal confinement or
whether she has been subjected to domestic violence.
4. It was brought to the notice that Ms.X had been admitted to
the Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur as she exhibited certain psychiatric
symptoms.
5. We directed the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority,
Thrissur, to visit the alleged detenu at the Jubilee Mission Hospital,
wherein she is admitted (DOA 18/5/2024 UI 306084) and to enable us
to have an interaction with the alleged detenu.
6. In terms of the directions, we have interacted with Ms.X
through videoconferencing. Ms. X stated before us that she was
subjected to domestic violence by her husband and she was illegally
confined. She has a minor child as well. She contacted her parents who
secured her release and she was shifted to her parental home. She
developed acquaintance with the petitioner through instagram and
became friends. She had divulged her difficulties to the petitoner as
well. After returning back home, she felt that she had depression and
wanted to get herself admitted for therapy. It was in the said
circumstances that she secured independent admission and treatment in
the Jubilee Mission Hospital. She stated before us that she is not under
illegal confinement and that she intends to stay with her parents, after
discharge from the hospital.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan
K.M.1 has observed that the pivotal purpose of a writ of habeas corpus
is to see that no one is deprived of his/her liberty without sanction of
law. It is the primary duty of the State to see that the said right is not
sullied in any manner whatsoever and its sanctity is not affected by any
kind of subterfuge. The role of the Court is to see that the detenu is
produced before it, find out about his/her independent choice, and see
to it that the person is released from illegal restraint. What is seminal is
to remember that the song of liberty is sung with sincerity and the
choice of an individual is appositely respected and conferred its
esteemed status as the Constitution guarantees. It is so as the
expression of choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of
the Constitution, provided the said choice does not transgress any valid
legal framework. Once that aspect is clear, the inquiry and determination
have to come to an end.
(2018) 16 SCC 368
8. We are satisfied that Ms.X has exercised her independent
choice to secure treatment. From our interaction, we find that Ms.X is
capable of making such choices. She has also stated that she is not
under illegal confinement.
We find no merit in this petition.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
APM/6/6/24
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 555/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE RECEIPT OF THE
COMPLAINT DATED 22.05.2024
Exhibit P3 SCREENSHOT OF THE RELEVANT WHATSAPP
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
DETENUE
