Kerala High Court
Sunil Dutt vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 August, 2016
Author: K.T.Sankaran
Bench: K.T.Sankaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/21ST ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 27348 of 2016 (P)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
------------------
SUNIL DUTT
"PRAGATHY", M.G NAGAR 125 A,
KILIKOLLOOR P.O, KOLLAM-691 004.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR
SMT.P.LISSY JOSE.
RESPONDENTS:
---------------------
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM-691 001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003.
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ERAVIPURAM CIRCLE,
KOLLAM - 691 011.
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM - 691 004.
5. SANTHOSH NAIR (DYSP IN SUSPENSION)
SREE PADMAM, MANAYILKULANGARA,
RAMANKULANGARA PO, KOLLAM-691 003.
6. PRAKASH @ VETTUKUTTAN
PALEKKAL VEEDU, PATTATHANAM P.O,
KOLLAM - 691 021.
7. BAIJU @ PAMP
PULINTHANATH THEKKATHIL, PATTATHANAM P.O,
KOLLAM - 691 021.
8. VIJAYAN @ RIPPER
AUTO DRIVER, KORAKATTU VEEDU,
PARVATHIYAR JUNCTION, PATTATHANAM PO,
KOLLAM - 691 021.
W.P.(C) NO.27348/2016
9. MURUKAN @ QUARTERS MURUKAN
RAILWAY QUARTERS, NEAR QUILON ATHLETIC CLUB,
KOLLAM - 691 001.
R1-R4 BY ADV. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I.
R5 BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL
R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.ANIL
R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR
R6 BY ADV. SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
R6 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
R6 BY ADV. SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.VIVEK
R6 BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJESH
R6 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR
R7 BY ADV. SRI.M.KIRANLAL
R8 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 27348 of 2016 (P)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
----------------------------------
EXHIBIT-P1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.08.2016 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT-P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.8.2016 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT-P3 : COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY
DATED 14.08.2016 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS:
EXHIBIT-P4: COPY OF THE NOTES AND STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER WITH
MARKINGS, HANDED OVER BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF BILL DATED 9.8.2016 ISSUED BY METRO MANOR HOTEL,
CALICUT TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT.R5(a) : COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN THE CBI CASE.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
K.T.SANKARAN & A.M.BABU, JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.27348 of 2016
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 13thday of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
K.T.Sankaran, J.
Respondent No.9 is not served with notice. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the name of respondent No.9 may be struck off. Accordingly, respondent No.9 is struck off from the array of parties.
2. The petitioner is a prosecution witness (CW74) in Sessions Case No.244 of 2016 of CBI Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That case was registered against respondent Nos.5 and 6 and five others on the allegation that the accused persons murdered one Happy Rajesh.
3. The Writ Petition was filed on 16.8.2016 for the following reliefs:
"(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 4 to give W.P.(C) No.27348/2016 2 adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner from the criminal activities of respondents 5 to 9 and their associates;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider and take action on Exhibits P1 and P2 complaints at once and ;
(iii) to issue such other appropriate writ, order or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper to issue in the circumstances of the case."
4. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing on 18.8.2016, an interim order directing respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner from the criminal activities of respondents 5 to 9 and their associates, was granted.
5. Later, the Writ Petitioner was examined before the Sessions Court on 31.8.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the threat to the life of the petitioner W.P.(C) No.27348/2016 3 continues since he has deposed against the accused persons in the case.
6. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8 submitted that averments and allegations in the Writ Petition are not true and the real state of affairs have been mentioned in the counter affidavit. At the same time, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8 made the stand of respondents 5 to 8 clear that they never had any intention to cause any threat to the petitioner and they undertook not to cause any threat to the Writ Petitioner.
7. The learned counsel appearing for CBI submitted that the apprehension voiced by the petitioner in the Writ Petition is true. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted that 13 witnesses examined in the Sessions Case turned hostile only on account of the interference by the accused who are on bail. The learned Standing Counsel for CBI submitted that W.P.(C) No.27348/2016 4 three applications have been filed to cancel the bail granted to accused Nos.1, 3 and 7.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submitted that they will be highly prejudiced, if the contentions in the Writ Petition as well in the counter affidavit are dealt with in detail and a finding is rendered with reference to the same. Any such finding may affect them adversely in future in the applications for cancellation of bail. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8 submitted that since they have made their position clear that they have no intention to cause any disturbance to the peaceful life of the petitioner, the Writ Petition can be closed by recording the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such a course would be sufficient for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the examination of the petitioner as PW45 and registration of a crime against the party W.P.(C) No.27348/2016 5 respondents, relief No.(ii) is not pressed.
In the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:
(i) The undertaking made by respondents 5 to 8 as mentioned above is recorded.
(ii) In case respondents 5 to 8 or any of them violate the undertaking made by them, respondents 3 and 4 shall afford adequate and effective police protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner as against any criminal activity which respondents 5 to 8 or any one of them may indulge in.
K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE A.M.BABU JUDGE csl/13.10.2016