An action initiated by the Home Department of the State through the Police force, to prevent the activities of the Maoist-idealist people in the forest area within the Vellamunda Police Station and other areas, under the name of "thunder bolt" and "anti-naxal squad" resulted in filing this writ petition on the premise of deprivation of liberty of the petitioner without justifiable reasons under law. Petitioner says that he has been arrested wrongfully and later released. He seeks action against the police officials besides compensation, in this writ petition.

2. The brief facts involved in this case are as follows: On 20/05/2014, on receiving information that a suspected Maoist is travelling in a Motor Cycle bearing No. KL-08/V 4755, the anti-naxal squad conducted patrolling in the area and questioned the petitioner. By that time, people had assembled and created a pandemonium. The police thereupon took the petitioner in a police jeep and interrogated after conducting body search. The General Diary produced by the learned Director General of Prosecution would indicate that the police suspected that the petitioner was a Maoist and he was taken into custody for questioning. The police version in the statement before this Court is that they were, in fact, trying to protect the petitioner from the group of people assembled in the area and took the petitioner in the jeep to the Police Station. However, it is admitted in the statement that the petitioner was interrogated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mananthavady and he had collected the laptops and mobile phone of the petitioner for verification. The police deny the fact that they have arrested the petitioner and also state that no crime has been registered against him. It is submitted that all the properties which were taken by the police from the petitioner have been returned to the petitioner.

3. The stand of the petitioner is that he was arrested without following any procedure established by law, as a suspected Maoist and on revealing his identity and whereabouts and on also finding that there is nothing connected to determine him as Maoist, he was released from the custody. Petitioner submits that he has been living in that area for more than four years along with his partner and is engaged in 'yoga sastra'.

4. The police version that the petitioner was taken in the jeep to the Police Station to protect him from the public who were agitating, appears to be a feeble defence put forward in this matter. The General Diary and other admitted searches conducted by the police would clearly dispel the claim of the police that the petitioner was taken to a safe place to protect him from the agitated people. If the intention of the police was only to protect the petitioner, what was the reason for the police to conduct search at the house of the petitioner and verify his mobile phone and laptops? Police version also does not disown the search being conducted in this area to prevent Maoist action. What was the purpose of police for taking the petitioner in the jeep to the Police Station? If the action of the police is not arrest, what else is it? What is an arrest as understood in law?

5. Liberty is one of the cardinal principles, etched in any civilised society governed by law. The Constitution only declares the inherent right of a person to hold such liberty against the whole world without interference unless authorised by law. An arrest is a deprivation of movement of a person for the purpose of answering any criminal charge potentially capable for conviction. Arrest is not defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nevertheless, the provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure would indicate that arrest is an authority given to a person to deprive the liberty of another to answer a criminal charge. In Black's Law Dictionary, `arrest' is defined as "to deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking, under real assumed authority, custody of another