Kerala Court Orders Conditional Attachment Of Police Sub-Inspector's Property For Prima Facie Custodial Torture Of Kollam Lawyer

A Kerala Court has ordered conditional attachment of a Police Sub-Inspector's property for prima facie custodial torture of a Kollam based lawyer.

Sub Judge Santhosh Das at Karunagapally has also asked the officer to either furnish security of ₹25,00,000 or show cause why he shall not furnish the security, by October 19.

Advocate Jayakumar had filed a suit seeking damages from the Station House Officer, Sub-Inspector of Karunagappally Police Station and on-duty Taluk Doctor. He alleged 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.

The instant application was moved under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC to restrain 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 Court's jurisdiction.

So far as the Taluk Doctor is concerned, the allegation against him was that he feigned the wound certificate showing that petitioner had consumed alcohol.

The incident had garnered attention when the advocates practicing at Kerala High Court decided to abstain from court work as a mark of protest. Similar protests were conducted by Advocates practicing in other parts of the State also.

The Court noted that there was a prima facie case of police torture made out against the defendant police officials. However, it added that no prima facie case was made out against the defendant doctor as "it is 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 found that the schedule did not reflect any property in SHO's name and third-party property cannot be attached. However, conditional attachment of the Sub-Inspector's property was ordered and the petition was partly allowed.

Case title: C Jayakumar v G Gopakumar & Ors

Case number: IA 1/2022 in OS 55/2022

Counsel for the plaintiff: Advocate M I Alexander Panicker

Counsel for the defendants: Advocates Sujeesh Kumar, Sudheesh.V and Joseph Rony Jose

Click Here To Read/Download Order