Kerala High Court
WP(Crl.)/480/2017 of V.MOHANAN Vs STATE OF KERALA on 29 December 2017
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(Crl.).No. 480 of 2017 (S) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- V.MOHANAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939WP(Crl.).No. 480 of 2017 (S)----------------------------- PETITIONER(S):-------------
V.MOHANAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. VELAPPAN PILLAI, 'SARASWATHI BHAVAN', MARUTHANKUZHI, KANJIRAMPARA P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 030
BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN
RESPONDENT(S):-------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 2. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE MALAPPURAM 676 505 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM 676 505 4. HABEEB S/O. MUHAMMED @ BAPPUTTY FAIZY 'ARIKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VENGOOR P.O, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 325 5. HAMZA ENGINNER, S/O. MUHAMMED 'MULANTHALA HOUSE', ALATHIYUR, TIRUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 102 6. PONNANGATHODI SAHARABHANU, W/O. DR. RABIULLAH, KARUVANTHODI HOUSE, KODOOR (P.O, MALAPPURAM DIST R5 BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR R1-R3 BY ADV. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI MANU RAJ K.J. ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER SHRI JAISHANKAR V.NAIR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.).No. 480 of 2017 (S) ----------------------------- APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10-07-2017
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS----------------------- NIL
ANNEXURE C1 COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT OF THE DETENUE PRODUCED INTHE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
//TRUE COPY//
dkr
PA TO JUDGE
A.M. SHAFFIQUE & ASHOK MENON, JJ.
------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl) No. 480 of 2017
------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2017
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court claiming that heis the friend of the detenue. During the course of theproceedings, this Court has appointed an AdvocateCommissioner to visit the detenue. The conclusions arrived at bythe Advocate Commissioner is extracted hereunder:
“i)Mr. Rabiullah is confined to his residence due to hismedical condition;medical condition;
ii)Though Mr.Rabiullah is under treatment for amedical condition stated as “Bipolar Disorder”, he isfully fit to be produced before this Hon'ble Court.However, such production may lead to unnecessarypublicity, which may cause loss of reputation andgoodwill, which in turn may jeopardize his businessas well as personal relations, especially hisdaughter's impending marriage;medical condition stated as “Bipolar Disorder”, he isfully fit to be produced before this Hon'ble Court.However, such production may lead to unnecessarypublicity, which may cause loss of reputation andgoodwill, which in turn may jeopardize his businessas well as personal relations, especially hisdaughter's impending marriage;
iii) Mr.Rabiullah does not wish to present himselfbefore the Court, in view of adverse publicity andreasons stated hereinabove.before the Court, in view of adverse publicity andreasons stated hereinabove.
WP(Crl) 480/2017
2
iv) Mr.Rabiullah is aggrieved by the fact that he isdenied free access to his mobile phone.”
2. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we donot think that any of the contentions raised by the petitioner isjustified. The detenue is in safe hand with the family andnecessary treatment is also given to the detenue. Under suchcircumstances, it cannot be stated that the detenue is illegallydetained by any of the relatives. The petition is dismissed.
3. The Registry shall keep the Report submitted by theAdvocate Commissioner in safe custody and shall not bepublished in any manner, unless otherwise directed.
Sd/-
Conclusion
A.M. SHAFFIQUE Judge
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
Judge
dkr
True copy
PA to Judge