Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Attachment Of Property Of Police Officer Accused In Custodial Torture Of Advocate
Manju Elsa Isac
22 Nov 2024 1:29 PM IST
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (21st November) dismissed the appeal filed by a police officer against the attachment of his property in a case of custodial torture of an advocate.
As per the allegation, the Circle Inspector of police at Karunagappally station at that time, nurturing some vengeance against the advocate for leading an agitation against him and thereby causing his transfer, along with other officers, took him to Karunagappally Police Station on 5th September 2022 and tortured him on the way and in custody. The advocate approached the Sub Judge, Karunagappally for compensation.
The Court, seeing that there was a prima facie case, asked the then Sub Inspector of Police of the station to furnish security of an amount of Rs. 25,00,000. The Court, on the advocate's allegation that the officer was taking haste steps to sell his property, ordered a conditional attachment of the property which was later made absolute.
The alleged incident got public attention when advocates of the Kerala High Court abstained from work for a day on 20th September 2022 as a mark of protest.
The police officer appealed against the attachment before the High Court saying that the said property is used as a security in a loan he has taken. He submitted that due to the attachment order, the bank is planning to recall the loan and initiate SARFAESI proceedings against the property. He further submitted that such an action would also affect the advocate's right to ultimately realise damages.
Justice G. Girish noted that the property was a security for the loan much before it was attached by the Court order. The Court observed that there is no basis for apprehension for the bank as it will have the right to proceed against the property in case the officer defaults on the loan.
The Court said there was no need to interfere with the order of the Sub Judge. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Counsel for the Appellant: Advocates N. M. Madhu, C. S. Rajani
Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. Rajan T. R.
Case No: FAO No. 70 of 2024
Case Title: Aloysius Alexander v S. Jayakumar @ Panambil S. Jayakumar and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 739
