Rohith A vs Superintendent Of Police

Alexander Thomas, J.

The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Criminal) are as follows:

“i) Issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ or order or direction to the respondents to produce the body of the detenue, namely, Afzana S.S. D/o.Sharafudheen, aged 18 years, S.S.Manzil, Bharathannoor P.O., Pangode, Kallara, Thiruvananthapuram-695 609 before this Hon'ble Court from the illegal custody of the respondents 3 to 5 and set her free,

ii) Dispense with production of English translation of documents in vernacular language.

iii) Such other relief's which is deemed to be fit and proper to this Honourable court in the facts and circumstance of the case.”

Heard Shri.Latheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Prosecutor appearing for official respondents 1 & 2. Notices have been duly served on contesting respondents 3 to 5. Though R3 to R5 have not entered appearance, we have interacted today with R4 (mother of the detenue), the alleged detenue as well as the petitioner through video conferencing.

The case set up in this writ proceedings, seeking for Habeas Corpus, is to the effect that the petitioner herein is now aged 21 years, and that he is having a love affair with the alleged detenue (Ms.S.S.Afzana, aged 19 years, daughter of R3 and R4) for some time, and that they have decided to live together and get their marriage solemnized, and that she is being detained by R3 to R5 against her wishes.

The learned Prosecutor has submitted on the basis of instructions that the 2nd respondent-SHO has conducted enquiry and it has been disclosed that the date of birth of the petitioner-A.Rohith is 18.10.2001, and that he is now aged 21 years, and that the date of birth of the alleged detenue-S.S.Afzana is 06.06.2003 and she has now completed 19 years of age.

Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the parties have appeared before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Thiruvananthapuram, who has arranged video conferencing facility. We thus interacted with the alleged detenue, R4 (alleged detenue's mother) as well as the petitioner. We also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Prosecutor.

We are told by the Secretary, DLSA, Thiruvananthapuram, that as directed by us, he had also earlier ascertained the details from the alleged detenue, who has apprised him that she is having a love affair with the petitioner; but that she wants to complete her studies and wants to stay with her parents, and later take a decision in the matter, but that she does not want her parents to put any restrictions in interacting with the petitioner. We have also interacted with the alleged detenue, who has told us that she is indeed having an affair with the petitioner for sometime, and that she is having good academic performance, and that she is now studying for second year of the Degree course and she wants to complete her education, and that she wants to reside with her parents now to complete her education, and that she will take decision about her future later, and that she wants to ensure that her parents do not put any unnecessary restrictions for her to interact with the petitioner.

We specifically queried to the alleged detenue as to whether she is under the illegal detention of R3 to R5 and as to whether she is being detained there against her wishes and without her consent, as alleged in the writ petition. The alleged detenue has specifically told us that she is not under the illegal detention of R3 to R5 or anyone else, and that she is residing with her parents in her parental home on her own volition.

In regard to the above said clear stand taken by the alleged detenue, we are of the firm view that the case that she is under the illegal detention of contesting respondents 3 to 5 or that she is being detained by them against her wishes etc. does not appear to be factually correct.

On our interaction, we also apprised R4 (mother of the detenue) that the parents should take care of her with love and respect, and that as she wants to reside with them now to continue her studies, her stand that unnecessary restrictions should not be placed by her parents on her interacting with the petitioner should also be duly respected. R4-Shamla has also apprised us that they will do so.

The upshot of the discussion is that the plea for issuance of the writ of Habeas Corpus is not made out. In that view of the matter, the above Writ Petition (Criminal) will stand dismissed.