The court upheld the right to personal liberty against illegal detention while ensuring protection for lawful activities, emphasizing police responsibility to maintain public order.

J U D G M E N T

K.M.Joseph, J.

These matters being connected, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) 52 of 2010 seeks a writ of habeas corpus for production of the body of Ms.Reshma S.R., who is alleged to be held in illegal detention by the 5th respondent. Petitioner also seeks a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to ensure the personal safety and protection of the petitioner and the detenu against the illegal act of the 5th respondent.

3. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4018 of 2010 is none other than the 5th respondent in W.P.(Crl.) 52 of

2010. The 5th respondent is the father of the alleged detenu.

4. Today, the alleged detenu was produced before us. She would tell us that she is not under any illegal detention and that her marriage has been fixed on 9.2.2010.

In the light of this submission W.P.(Crl.) 52 of

2010 is only to be dismissed and we do so.

5. W.P.(C) No.4018 of 2010 is filed praying police protection against the 5th respondent and others for conducting the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner S.R.Reshma which is to be held on 9.2.2010 at Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor and thereafter at the residence of the petitioner at N.Parur in Ernakulam District and also for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to maintain law and order during the time of the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner S.R.Reshma.

6. In this case, Sri.Sreekumar, G. (Chelur) takes notice for the 5th respondent. Learned Government Pleader Sri.P.N.Sukumaran takes notice for respondents 1 to 4. In the writ petition, allegations are made against the petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) 52 of 2010 who is made as the 5th respondent in this writ petition. It is stated that the 5th respondent has committed several criminal activities against the petitioner and his family members. It is also stated that the 5th respondent along with seven persons have trespassed the house of the petitioner at Guruvayoor and they have threatened the daughter of the petitioner Renjisha who has filed Ext.P2 complaint. Of course, Ext.P1 is the wedding card of S.R.Reshma, the alleged detenu in the other case. Exts.P3 and P4 are the complaints filed before the Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor.

7. We have already dismissed W.P.(Crl.) 52 of

2010. In view of the facts of the case, we feel that the petitioner may be justified in seeking a direction to provide protection for the conduct of the marriage of his daughter. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.4018/2010 is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate and effective police protection against the 5th respondent and his men for the conduct of the marriage of the petitioner's daughter S.R.Reshma to be held on 9.2.2010 at Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor and thereafter at the residence of the petitioner at N.Parur in Ernakulam District.

(K.M.JOSEPH)

JUDGE.

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)

JUDGE.

MS