SUNITHA.V Vs. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the mother of a girl aged 17 years, named Ms.Priyanandana. The above writ petition is filed seeking a writ of habeas corpus for directing production of the corpus of Ms.Priyanandana, based on an allegation that she is kept under illegal confinement by the respondents 5 and 6, against her free will.

(2.) Averments in brief are that, the alleged detenue was missing from the house of the petitioner since 10.06.2018. Pursuant to a complaint lodged by the petitioner, the 4 th respondent had traced out the alleged detenue and produced her before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakkada and the learned Magistrate had set the alleged detenue at liberty and released her to the petitioner. Thereafter, she was residing with the petitioner at Kattakkada. The alleged detenue was seen missing again from 20.06.2018 onwards. Enquiries conducted by the petitioner revealed that, she is in illegal confinement of respondents 5 and 6. It is stated that the petitioner submitted a complaint before the 4th respondent. But the police authorities have not taken any effective steps to trace out the alleged detenue and to release her from the illegal detention.

(3.) When the case came up for admission on 29.06.2018, this court directed respondents 1 to 4 to ensure presence of the alleged detenue before this court. On 03.07.2018 when the matter was further considered, it was informed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 that, the 5 th respondent had kidnapped the alleged detenue on an earlier occasion also, for which a case was registered as Crime No.810/2018 of Kattakkada police station, which is under investigation. It is stated that the offence in the said case was altered as one punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code. It was also informed that, with respect to the subsequent missing of the alleged detenue, another case was registered at the very same police station as Crime No.850/2018, which is also under investigation. This court had issued specific direction to the 2nd respondent to take over the charge of the investigation in the above said cases and to take out all earnest and effective steps to trace out the alleged detenue as well as the 5th respondent. Accordingly the case was adjourned to this date.