Kollam advocate assault: Kerala Court orders conditional attachment of property belonging to accused Police SI

A Kerala court recently ordered the conditional attachment of the property belonging to a Sub-Inspector (SI) of police who is among those accused of assaulting and torturing a Kollam-based advocate [C Jayakumar v G Gopakumar & Ors.]..Sub-Judge Santosh Das directed the accused SI to furnish a security of ₹25 lakh or to show cause as to why he should not furnish such security.The Court ordered that the property of the accused be attached as an interim measure."In the meantime, the property in schedule No. 2 (property belonging to the SI) of this petition will be put under conditional attachment," the Court ordered. The order was passed on an application filed by the aggrieved lawyer, C Jayakumar in connection with his suit for compensation from officials of the Karunagappally Police Station, who were allegedly responsible for his custodial torture. On considering the rival arguments, the Court found that a strong prima facie case was made out by the lawyer against the police personnel and that there was a likelihood that the suit for compensation will succeed.Hence, it allowed the lawyer's application in so far as the SI's property was concerned. "It is affirmed by the petitioner that this respondent (SI) is taking hasty steps to alienate petition schedule No. 2 property and if that is permitted, the scope of the execution of the decree that may be passed against this respondent would become bleak," the Court reasoned. .The suit was filed by the lawyer seeking compensation from the Circle Inspector (CI) of the Karunagapally Police, its SI and a doctor.In his application, the lawyer told the court that he had got information from a real estate broker that the accused officials, including the SI, were taking hasty steps to sell their properties and that they were trying to shift their residence out of the jurisdiction of the court..The lawyer's allegation is that the police officials took him into custody and tortured him on September 5, 2022, on the basis of a false allegation. This was done to wreak vengeance as the lawyer had earlier led an agitation against the CI, which led to his transfer in 2010, the Court was told.Consequently, the lawyer claimed that in 2022, the CI conspired and colluded with three goons to create a scene, so that the police could take him into custody. The lawyer alleged that while he was driving his car toward Karunagappally Railway Station, the said goons obstructed his car and created a ruckus.He submitted that the police officials reached the spot of the altercation in no time and took him into police custody, tortured him and released him from lock up only late in the night. .Empty courtrooms, mass adjournments at Kerala High Court as lawyers protest police violence against Kollam advocate.Moreover, he claimed that when he went to get his injuries treated, the Taluk doctor who examined him added certain words to his report which falsely indicated that the lawyer was under the influence of alcohol. This was done at the behest of the police officials, the lawyer submitted.These allegations were refuted by the CI and the doctor through statements of objections. The SI, however, failed to file his statement of objections..Although the court found prima facie force in the allegations of custodial torture, the Court opined that no such case was made out against the doctor Rather, the Court opined that is common practice for doctors to make note of the general appearance of the patient in medical records, which cannot be faulted.Hence, no order was passed against the doctor. In so far as the CI was concerned, the Court noted that the property sought to be attached was in his wife's name."There cannot be any quarrel that 3rd party property cannot be attached," the Court reasoned while declining to pass any attachment order against the CI..The aggrieved lawyer (petitioner) was represented by advocate MI Alexander Panicker.The respondents including the CI and Station House Officer of Karunagapally Police Station and the Taluk hospital doctor were represented by advocates Sujeesh Kumar, Sudheesh V and Joseph Rony..[Read Order]