The Kerala High Court in the case C Jayakumar v G Gopakumar And Ors observed and has ordered the conditional attachment of the property of Police Sub-Inspector›s for prima facie custodial torture of a Kollam based lawyer.
The bench headed by Sub Judge Santhosh Das at Karunagapally in the case observed and has also asked the officer to either furnish security for an amount of ₹25,00,000 or show cause why he shall not furnish the security by October 19, 2023.
In the present case, the suit was filed by Advocate Jayakumar wherein seeking damages damages from the Station House Officer, Sub-Inspector of Karunagappally Police Station and on-duty Taluk Doctor.
It has been alleged by him that on account of personal rivalry, the SHO colluded with three goons so as to create a scene for taking him into police custody, where he was illegally detained, handcuffed and physically tortured.
However, the instant application was moved under order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the defendants from alienating their properties and for attachment of their assets.
Petitioner alleged that defendants were taking hasty steps to sell out their properties and were trying to shift outside the jurisdiction of Court.
The court in the case observed that as far as the Taluk Doctor is concerned, the allegation which are made against him was that he feigned the wound certificate showing that petitioner had consumed alcohol.
Therefore, the said incident had granted attention when the advocates who are practising at the Kerala High Court decided to abstain from court work as a mark of protest. Thus, the Advocates practicing in other parts of the State also conducted the similar protest. It has also been noted by the said court that there being a prima facie case of police torture made out against the defendant police officials.
Adding to it, the court stated that no prima facie case was made out against the defendant doctor as it being the common practice that the doctors will make a note of the general appearance of the patient in the medical records and that cannot be faulted with.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case found that the schedule did not reflect any property in SHO›s name and third-party property cannot be attached.
The court ordered for conditional attachment of the property of the Sub-Inspector’s. Accordingly, the court partly allowed the plea. The counsel, Advocate M I Alexander Panicker appeared for the plaintiff. The counsel, Advocate Sujeesh Kumar, Advocate Sudheesh. V and Advocate Joseph Rony Jose represented the defendant.
