Ali Akbar, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 31, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1561976

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1561976
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Alexander Thomas,Honourable Mrs. Justice Sophy Thomas
Decided On: Oct 31, 2022
Case Number: WP(Crl.)/1002/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ali Akbar,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....18 years on 07.02.2022. that, she was on friendly terms with the petitioner, but that she does not intend to live with him or marry him and that, she has passed plus two course and she got admission in first year b.sc. course in a private unaided affiliated college in pattambi, palakkad district (viz., lement college) and that she wants tocontinue her studies and that she is not under the illegal detention of r-5, who is her father, and that she is residing with her father on her own wishes, etc. we have also interacted with the petitioner, who wasalso available in the video conferencing session. after directly interacting with the parties, we are of the view that the plea put up in the writ proceedings, that the alleged detenue is under the illegal detention of r-5 or that she is residing in the house of r-5 against her wishes, etc., appears to be untenable and factually wrong. in other words, the basic factual pleas for putting up a claim for the writ of habeas corpus, is not available in this case. hence, the above writ petition (crl.) will stand dismissed.sd/- alexander thomas judge sd/- sophy thomas judge vgd appendix of wp(crl.) 1002/2022 petitioner's exhibits exhibit p1 photos showing the relationship between the petitioner and the detenu. exhibit p2 a true photocopy of the o.p ticket issued from taluk hospital, pattambi dated 18.10.2022.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(CRL.) NO. 1002 OF 2022 PETITIONER: ALI AKBAR, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED, NANDYARATHIL HOUSE, MARUTHUR P.O, CHOORAKODE PALAM, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 306. BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001. 2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW & ORDER), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, SOUTH FORT ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. 4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PATTAMBI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679303. 5 ABDULLA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KALATHILTHODY HOUSE, CHOORAKODE PALAM, CHOORAKODE P.O, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679336. BY ADVS. KEERTHI M. SREENATH VIJAYARAGHAVAN SRI.E.C.BINEESH-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ALEXANDER THOMAS & SOPHY THOMAS, JJ. ================================= ================================= Dated this the 31st day of October, 2022

JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The case set up in the above Writ Petition (Crl.) is to the effect

that the petitioner, now aged 26 years, is having a love affair with the alleged detenue, Ms.Suhaina (Full Name - Fathima Suhaina Abdulla, aged 18 years, daughter of R-5), and that of late, she has been detained in the house of R-5 against her wishes and that, she is, thus, under the illegal detention of R-5 and that she wants to live with the petitioner and that they plan to get married, etc.

2. In this case, we had issued notice on 26.10.2022. The learned Public Prosecutor has taken notices for official respondents 1 to

4. Notice has been duly served on contesting respondent No.5 (father

of the alleged detenue), by special messenger. On that day, 26.10.2022, we had also directed that R-4 SHO will produce the alleged detenue on 31.10.2022 at 9.30 a.m. before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Palakkad, who would then interact with the alleged detenue and thereafter, the Secretary, DLSA was also ordered to arrange video conferencing, to enable this Court to directly interact with the alleged detenue at 10.15 a.m. on 31.10.2022.

3. Today, the Secretary, DLSA, Palakkad has arranged a video

conferencing and we have interacted with the alleged detenue as well as the petitioner. The Secretary, DLSA has told us that earlier, she had also directly interacted with the alleged detenue, who has told her that she is not under the illegal detention of R-5 or anyone else and that, she is residing in the house of R-5 (her father) on her own wishes and that, though she was on friendly terms with the petitioner, she is not interested to live with him and that, she is now studying for First Year of B.Sc. Degree course in an unaided affiliated college, etc.

4. We have also directly interacted with the alleged detenue.

She has told that her full name is Fathima Suhaina Abdulla and that, her date of birth is 07.02.2004 and she has completed the majority age of 18 years on 07.02.2022. That, she was on friendly terms with the petitioner, but that she does not intend to live with him or marry him and that, she has passed plus two course and she got admission in First Year B.Sc. course in a private unaided affiliated college in Pattambi, Palakkad District (viz., Lement College) and that she wants to

continue her studies and that she is not under the illegal detention of R-5, who is her father, and that she is residing with her father on her own wishes, etc. We have also interacted with the petitioner, who was

also available in the video conferencing session. After directly interacting with the parties, we are of the view that the plea put up in the writ proceedings, that the alleged detenue is under the illegal detention of R-5 or that she is residing in the house of R-5 against her wishes, etc., appears to be untenable and factually wrong. In other words, the basic factual pleas for putting up a claim for the writ of habeas corpus, is not available in this case. Hence, the above Writ Petition (Crl.) will stand dismissed.

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE vgd APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1002/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOS SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE DETENU. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE O.P TICKET ISSUED FROM TALUK HOSPITAL, PATTAMBI DATED 18.10.2022.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Ali Akbar, vs State of Kerala, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Alexander Thomas,Honourable Mrs. Justi...