IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 PRESENT :
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA AND THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY WRIT PETITION (HC) No.29 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Smt. Balamma, W/o. A. Mani @ Ayyanas, Aged about 60 years, R/at No.10, 1st Floor, Corporation Building, Dr. T.C.M. Royan Road, Bengaluru-560 053. …Petitioner (By Sri. B.V. Manjunatha, Advocate) AND:
1. The Home Secretary, State of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Police Inspector, Cottonpet Police Station, Cottonpet, Bengaluru – 560 053. …Respondents (By Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, Addl. Advocate General a/w Sri. S.V.Giri Kumar, HCGP) This Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of Habeas-corpus directing the respondents to search and produce the son of the petitioner by name Senthil Kumar before this Hon’ble Court, thereafter set him at liberty forthwith, in the interest of justice and equity.
This Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus), coming on for Orders this day, K.N. PHANEENDRA, J., made the following:
ORDER The alleged detenue Mr.Senthil Kumar voluntarily appeared before the Court. We do not know how he got the information about the pendency of this case. However, the fact remains that he voluntarily appeared before the Court.
2. The petitioner Smt.Balamma and her husband parents of Mr.Senthil Kumar and also the sister of the alleged detenue by name Kum.Hamsaveni, all are present before the Court and identified the detenue Mr.Senthil Kumar as the son of the petitioner and her husband and also the brother of Kum.Hamsaveni. The alleged detenue is examined before the Court and he gives the information that, during the time he was prosecuting his B.E. studies, he has left the house as there was some ill-treatment and torture in the house and thereafter, he went to several places and ultimately, presently he is residing in Bengaluru in Gandhinagar, working in a hotel. He do not want to join his father, mother and sister. He wants to stay away from them and he wants to reside independently according to his will and wish.
3. The petitioner and the father of the detenue and sister and the detenue were allowed to talk with each other for a period of 45 minutes for the purpose of exploring any possibility of mutual understanding between the parties, which actually failed and the alleged detenue still sticks on to his version that he would like to reside separately and he do not want to go back to his parents.
4. In the above said circumstances, the detenue being aged about 33 years, the Court cannot force the alleged detenue to go with his parents. Under the above said circumstances, in our opinion, petition does not survive for consideration on merits.
5. In the morning hours, while examining the petitioner and the father and sister of the detenue, the sister of the detenue made allegations that a police official by name Govindappa K.T, Assistant Sub-Inspector and Monnappa, Police Constable, have demanded and received an amount of `3,000/- from the sister of the alleged detenue for the purpose of going in search of the detenue to Kerala. Further, the petitioner and her daughter – Kum.Hamsaveni, have specifically pointed that one Fakirappa, Police Constable, also threatened them with dire consequences.
6. In fact, we remember that on the previous occasion, the Court found that the petitioner and their family are not in a position to afford to pay any amount to secure the presence of one Krishnappa suspected detainer of the detenue from Kerala. Therefore, the Court has directed the police to secure the presence of said Krishnappa and the detenue if possible and produce them before the Court. In spite of the matter being pending before the Court, the said police officials acted in such a manner. Further it is also alleged by Kum.Hamsaveni that one of the Police Constable by name Fakirappa threatened the petitioner and sister of the alleged detenue with dire consequences and also told them that they will do their work and will search the detenue as and when they feel it necessary.
7. On the basis of the said allegations made by Kum.Hamsaveni, this Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Division, to be present before the Court to ascertain about the above said allegations made against those police personnel. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, West Division Sri. Ravi D.Channannavar, is present before the Court and filed an affidavit before the Court that immediately after such allegations made by Kum.Hamsaveni, he has taken very strict action and suspended the two police officials i.e., Govindappa, Assistant Sub-Inspector and Monnappa, Police Constable, pending enquiry against them. He also submit that action will be taken against Fakirappa in accordance with law. We appreciate the said action swiftly taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Division.
8. Be that as it may, the detenue himself has stated before the Court that at no point of time, he was in illegal custody or unlawful custody with anybody, much less, the said alleged C.B.Krishnappa as stated in the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(1) of Code of Civil Procedure, to bring him as one of the parties to the proceedings. Under the above said circumstances, there is no necessity for securing the presence of the said person before the Court as it is not established before the Court that the detenue at any point of time was and is in unlawful or illegal custody of the said Krishnappa.
9. Therefore, looking from any angle, the Petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly dismissed. The alleged detenue Mr.Senthil Kumar, who is present before the Court, is set at liberty.
10. As the petitioner and her daughter Kum.Hamsaveni have specifically pointed out that one Fakirappa, Police Constable of Cottonpet, Police Station, threatened them in the above said manner, we also direct the Deputy Commissioner of Police to take appropriate action in accordance with law against that person.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Bk/