THOMAS M.K Vs. STATE POLICE CHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition, which has been filed seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus or other appropriate writ of such nature, prays that his brother by name Sri.Stephen be produced before this Court, on the specific allegation that Sri.Stephen is under the illegal custody of the fifth respondent who is his own son. In effect, the accusation in this writ petition is that the fifth respondent - Sri.Shyam, who is the son of the detenu - Sri.Stephen, has detained him illegally with certain confutative motives and the petitioner says that such detention is illegal and therefore, liable to be interfered by this Court.

(2.) The factual foundations, which we will narrate only in the most compendious terms, as are available from the pleadings on record, appear to have genesis in the allegation that the fifth respondent is attempting to misappropriate or convert into his ownership illegally, the properties owned by the detenu - Sri.Stephen by branding Sri.Stephen as a psychiatric patient. The petitioner says that his brother - the detenu was admitted by the fifth respondent without any reasonable cause to a particular hospital in its psychiatric ward so as to enable him to assert that his father is not psychologically well and therefore, incompetent to manage his own properties, thus to make an attempt to assume such properties in his own name.

(3.) This writ petition was admitted by this Court on 25.01.2018 and by an order of the same day, Sri.H.Praveen (Kottarakara), a learned counsel of this Court was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner to interact with the detenu, who was at that time admitted as an inpatient in the psychiatric ward of a particular hospital. The learned Advocate Commissioner was also directed to consult and interact with the Doctor who is treating the detenu and he was asked to file a report on record within the next posting date. It appears that the learned Advocate Commissioner, in obedience to the directions of this Court, met the detenu and the Doctor and a report dated 29.01.2018 was filed wherein his observations have been specifically recorded. The learned Advocate Commissioner, in his report, states unequivocally that his interaction with the detenu did not indicate to him any characteristic of a psychiatric disorder and according to him, the detenu's problem appears to be a matter of deep suspicion regarding his wife and children on various grounds. The Doctor, who was treating the detenu, told the Advocate Commissioner, as is also recorded in the report, that even though the detenu does not have any palpable mental abnormalities of disorder, he was admitted in the psychiatric ward in the hospital because, at the time when he was brought to the hospital, he was exhibiting violent behaviour. Based on this report, this Court interacted with the detenu on 31.01.2018, when he was produced before this Court, and ordered that he be shifted to the Divine Retreat Centre, Muringur for psychiatric counselling, being under the impression, from a reading of the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner, that the detenu requires counselling rather than treatment for psychiatric disorders. It is in the backdrop of the above facts that this matter has been listed before us today.