KUSUMAKUMARI Vs. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three sisters of a person named Mr. Ashok Kumar @ Kochumon, who is aged 57 years, are the petitioners herein, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for directing production of corpus of Mr. Ashok Kumar @ Kochumon (hereinafter referred to as the 'alleged detenue') and to set him at liberty, raising an allegation that the respondents 3 to 6 are keeping him under illegal detention at the 7th respondent's hospital. Respondent 3 to 6 are the wife, son, daughter and son -in -law of the alleged detenue.

(2.) Averments in the writ petition are that, the alleged detenue was conducting some business in Muscat since the last more than 25 years. The 4th respondent was also residing with him in Muscat for some time. He had flourished in his business substantially, and is running certain business activities in Thiruvalla also. He has got considerable landed property and is also running a Dairy Farm. He was awarded with "Karshaka Sree" by the Municipality of Thiruvalla, in the year 2015. It is stated that he has constructed several complexes, buildings and residential buildings and is also earning considerable rental income. Meanwhile, the 4th respondent fell in love with a girl named Sharanya, which relationship was not willing to the alleged detenue. But since the 4th respondent was adamant in his stand, the alleged detenue had agreed for their marriage, unwillingly. It is alleged that, the alleged detenue got an agreement executed by his wife and son to the effect that they would not have any right over the property and wealth of the alleged detenue. The marriage of the 4th respondent was solemnized on 21 -01 -2016. The alleged detenue was present during the rituals and ceremonies of the marriage. But he left the place immediately even without taking any food. On that day evening, after relatives of the bride left the house, the respondents 3 to 6 forcefully confined the alleged detenue in a room in the house and he was brutally manhandled by the 6th respondent. Thereafter the 2nd respondent and party came to the house and took the alleged detenue forcibly to the police station. When the 1st petitioner visited the police station it was noticed that the alleged detenue was crying aloud, presumably due to the torture inflicted by police. It is alleged that, at about 11 p.m. on the said day the alleged detenue was forcefully taken by the 1st petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6 in a police vehicle, on the premise that he needs to be admitted in a de -addiction centre. By about 3 a.m. on the early morning on 22 -01 -2016 he was admitted to the 7th respondent's hospital. It is stated that, when the 1st petitioner questioned about admission of the alleged detenue in the said hospital, the police authorities as well as respondents 4 to 6 threatened her. Thereafter when the petitioners visited the alleged detenue in the 7th respondent's hospital on 26 -01 -2016, they were not permitted to see the alleged detenue. But, later when they met the alleged detenue in the hospital, he was crying and had shown various injuries on his body. He pleaded for rescuing him from the hospital. Accordingly the petitioners have approached the police authorities seeking assistance for release of the alleged detenue from the 7th respondent's hospital. But they refused to take any action. According to the petitioners, it is only due to a conspiracy hatched between respondents 3 to 6 that the alleged detenue is confined in the said hospital, in order to create an impression that he is mentally sick and is a drunkard. It is alleged that, motive of the respondents 3 to 6 is only to get the extensive wealth owned by the alleged detenue.

(3.) When the case came up for admission on 02 -02 - 2016, we directed the Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondents 1 & 2, with respect to the alleged forceful admission of the detenue at the 7th respondent's hospital. They were also directed to obtain a certificate from the 7th respondent's hospital regarding the health condition of the alleged detenue. The 2nd respondent was also directed to get an independent statement of the alleged detenue recorded and produced before this court.