close
close

Kerala High Court Rejects Appeal Against Seizure of Property of Police Officer Accused of Torturing Lawyer in Custody

Kerala High Court Rejects Appeal Against Seizure of Property of Police Officer Accused of Torturing Lawyer in Custody

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (21st Kasim) rejected a police officer’s objection against the seizure of his property in the case of torture in custody of a lawyer.

Allegedly, the Police Circle Inspector, who was at Karunagappally police station at that time, took him to Karunagappally Police Station along with other officers for 5 days in order to take revenge on the lawyer who had caused agitation against him and hence caused his transfer.he He tortured himself on the road and in custody in September 2022. The lawyer approached Sub-Judge Karunagappally for compensation.

The court, finding that a prima facie case existed, he asked The then Police Sub-Inspector of the police station for ensuring the security of an amount of Rs. 25,00,000. Based on the lawyer’s claim that the officer took hasty steps to sell his property, the court decided to impose a conditional seizure of the property, which was later finalized.

The alleged incident was brought to public attention by lawyers of the Kerala High Court. stayed away from work for a day on the 20thhe September 2022 as a sign of protest.

The police officer objected to the seizure decision in the Supreme Court, saying that the real estate in question was used as collateral for the loan he received. He stated that due to the attachment order, the bank plans to withdraw the loan and initiate SARFAESI proceedings against the property. He further stated that such action would also affect the lawyer’s eventual right to receive compensation.

Judge G. Girish He noted that the property was collateral for the loan long before it was seized by Court order. The court observed that there was no reason for the officer’s arrest as the bank would have the right to take action against the property if he defaulted in repayment of the loan.

The court said there was no need to interfere with the decision of the Subordinate Judge. Accordingly, the objection was rejected.

Appellant Counsel: Advocates NM Madhu, CS Rajani

Defendants’ Lawyer: Atty. Rajan TR

Case No: FAO No. 70, 2024

Case Title: Aloysius Alexander v. S. Jayakumar @ Panambil S. Jayakumar and Others

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 739

Click Here to Read/Download the Order