FATHIMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the wife of Meeran @ Beeran has filed this writ petition seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the production of the body of her husband on the allegation that her husband was taken into custody by the 2nd respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha on 9.10.2012 and is being illegally detained by the 2nd respondent in station lock up. It is alleged that she and other family members of the detenu are not even permitted to see Meeran @ Beeran. On considering this writ petition for admission, Mr. Tom Jose Padinjarekkara, learned Additional Director General of Prosecution took notice for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Tom Jose was directed to seek necessary instructions among the respondents as to the correctness of the allegations in the writ petition. Mr. Tom Jose would submit today before us that the petitioner's husband Meeran @ Beeran is a notorious criminal involved in a large number of cases. He was arrested by the S.I. of Police, Muvattupuzha on 16.10.2012 and not on 9.10.2012 as the petitioner alleges. Upon arresting him, the police could seize Rs. 8 lakhs from him as well as a new Yamaha motor cycle. Crime No. 960 of 2012 was registered under Sections 41(1)(d) and 102 of the Cr. P.C. of Muvattupuzha Police Station. During the interrogation he confessed that he along with four others committed a dacoity at Ukkadam near Coimbatore and robbed an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs from one Moitheen who belongs to Muvattupuzha who was on a business journey to Coimbatore. On getting such information, the section of the offence was changed to 395, 412 and 120(b) IPC. Subsequently, one Basheer, S/o. Peeru belonging to Velloorkunnam Village, Muvattupuzha was also arrested and the two accused were produced before the J.F.C.M. Court, Muvattupuzha on 17.10.2012. The learned Magistrate would remand them to judicial custody. The case diary pertaining to the above crime will have to be transferred to Ukkadam Police Station as the place of occurrence falls within the limits of that Police Station. Mr. Tom Jose further submitted that immediately after the arrest, the writ petitioner who is the wife of Meeran @ Beeran was informed about the arrest over phone. He also pointed out that Meeran @ Beeran was in jail for more than 9 years in connection with various other crimes including crime Nos. 1/94 and 21/95 of Oonukal Police Station, Crime No. 74/92 of Karimannoor Police Station, Crime No. 177/05 of Rajakkad Police Station, Crime No. 217/07 of Nenmara Police Station and Crime No. 173/95 of Vadakkanchery Police Station. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution also submitted that Meeran @ Beeran was involved in many other property cases in various police stations in Kerala like Adimaly, Kothamangalam, Puthencruz, Perumbavoor etc. It was also submitted that Crime No. 753 of 2012 under Sections 457, 461 and 380 IPC was registered by the Muvattupuzha Police for theft from Aiswarya Jewellery, Muvattupuzha and the investigation in the said crime is going on. Mr. Padayattee Yeldo, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that instructions imparted to the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution by the S.I. of Police, Muvattupuzha is far from truth. Meeran @ Beeran was taken into custody as early as on 9.10.2012 from his residence at Murikkumthotty in Idukki District and Crime No. 960 of 2012 was registered only on coming to know that the present writ petition has been moved by the petitioner. According to Mr. Yeldo, the 2nd respondent illegally recovered a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs from the residence of the petitioner's son -in -law at Kottayam.

(2.) WE do not propose to decide the truth of the 2nd respondent's version and the petitioner's version. The only issue that arises for decision by us is whether the writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus is liable to be issued. As it cannot be disputed that the detenu (the husband of the petitioner) is presently in judicial custody, the above issue has to be answered against the petitioner. We decline the relief sought for in this writ petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed.