( 1 ) A simple Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) complicated by the cleverness of the police is what this case illustrates. ( 2 ) SMT. Susheelamma is the petitioner. She states in her petition that her husband Govindaraju and her sister's son Doraiswamy, both residing at No. 23, 9th Main Road, K. P. Agraharam, Bangalore-23, are law abiding and peaceful citizens of Bangalore City. ( 3 ) GOVINDARAJU is a dealer in Kerosene. Doraiswamy assists Govindaraju in the said business. ( 4 ) ON 5-2-1991, in the early hours, the second respondent Sub-Inspector of Police, Jnanabharthi Police Station, Bangalore, came and took away both these persons. This was under the pretext that the Sub-Inspector (Sri Chikkanna), required them for some purpose. When the said persons, namely, Govindaraju and Doraiswamy asked as to the purpose of their being taken to the police station, they were informed that the same will be let known on their coming to the police station. Thereafter, nothing was heard of these two persons. ( 5 ) SMT. Susheelamma (Petitioner) made several attempts to find out their whereabouts and ultimately she came to know they have been detained in the police station (Jnanabharathi Police Station) for no offence. It was under these circumstances, complaining flag' rant violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, she came forward with this writ petition. ( 6 ) THE matter was taken up by us on mentioning by the Advocate for the petitioner, that these two persons Govindaraju and Doraiswamy are likely to be taken away from Bangalore and therefore the matter was urgent. On this plea we directed the learned Government Advocate, Sri N. K. Gupta, to take notice and the case itself be called at the end of the list. Accordingly, we took up the case at 5 p. m. yesterday. ( 7 ) THE Police Officer (Chikkanna), Jnanabharathi Police Station, yesterday was present before Court. ( 8 ) THE learned Government Advocate, represented on instructions from the said Sub-Inspector of Police, that neither Govindaraju nor Doraiswamy was ever taken into custody. We also asked the Sub-Inspector. He reiterated the said statement. ( 9 ) THE petitioner-Susheelamma was asked in Tamil by one of us (Chief Justice) since she was conversant in Tamil. She graphically described as to when these two persons Govindaraju and Doraiswamy were taken into custody. We also asked the Sub-Inspector. He reiterated the said statement. ( 9 ) THE petitioner-Susheelamma was asked in Tamil by one of us (Chief Justice) since she was conversant in Tamil. She graphically described as to when these two persons Govindaraju and Doraiswamy were taken into custody. She would swear that even at 3 p. m. yesterday, her husband was detained for no justifiable reason. Further, she gave food to him while her nephew Doraiswamy had been taken away to Vellore. At this stage, it is also necessary for us to mention certain factual background. ( 10 ) IT appears Babu, the second son of the petitioner Susheelamma and Govindaraju had developed friendship with one Sudha and both of them had eloped to Dharmasala to get married. At that stage, Doraiswamy was sent by Petitioner Susheelamma and Govindaraju to fetch back the boy Babu. Both of them returned to Bangalore and they were taken by Autorickshaw to the house. When the girl Sudha was advised to go back to her parents abode, at first she refused and later on at 5 a. m. on the succeeding day she went away. It appears, an oral complaint was made by the parents of Sudha against this Govindaraju and Doraiswamy as though they had kidnapped Sudha. It was under these circumstances, the interrogation. (sic) "for the purpose of interrogation" they were called to the police station. Whatever it is, both the learned Government Advocate and the Sub-Inspector concerned asserted that they were not taken into police custody. ( 11 ) WHILE reverting to the statement of Susheelamma she would add that Babu after return to Bangalore had left for Vellore, N. A. District, Tamilnadu. Doraiswamy was taken by the police to Vellore. Finding that the said Babu could not be traced they have returned. Under these circumstances, we ordered orally yesterday the Sub-Inspector to produce both these persons, namely, Govindaraju and Doraiswamy. They are not produced but they are present in the Court. We say "not produced" because the Sub-Inspector does not even have the elementary courtesy, let alone the respect for the Court and he is not present. Govindaraju when asked in Tamil, he would assert that he was taken into police custody on Tuesday, on 5-2-1991, at 11 a. m. and kept Doraiswamy is also to the same effect. However, there till yesterday 3. Govindaraju when asked in Tamil, he would assert that he was taken into police custody on Tuesday, on 5-2-1991, at 11 a. m. and kept Doraiswamy is also to the same effect. However, there till yesterday 3. 30 p. m. The version of he would add that he was taken to Vellore, N. D. District in a private jeep bearing Dregistration No. MDT 8149 for which he was asked to bear the costs of diesel which came to Rs. 266-34. The private jeep was driven by one Gangadharan. Those who accompanied him to Vellore were two persons related to Sudha and two policemen belonging to Crime Branch. Finding that Babu was not at Vellore, they returned to Bangalore. Thereafter diesel charges were required to be paid by the petitioner. In addition to this, a demand was also made on return from Vellore for a further sum of Rs. 700/ -. Both Govindaraju and Doraiswamy pleaded inability to pay. Under the circumstances they were obliged to approach one Subramani the nephew of Govindaraju who came forward to pay Rs. 700/ -. The said Subramani is also present in the Court. When he was asked as to wherefrom he got the money, he would state that he had kept with him a sum of Rs. 5,000/- out of which he paid Rs. 700/- and the balance of Rs. 4300/ - presently he has in cash at home. He would offer to produce the same if the Court gives some time. We are of the view that the statements of these persons ring truth. Unfortunately, as we stated above, the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police is not even here to contradict or at any rate to weigh against these statements. Though the learned Government Advocate would tell us that the Sub-Inspector promised to turn at 10. 30 a. m. for reasons best known he has not cared to come. ( 12 ) IT is further alleged before us that both Govindaraju and Doraiswamy were beaten in order to disclose the whereabouts of Babu because the police were of the view that they were the ones who were responsible for keeping the Babu in hiding. ( 13 ) IT is at this stage the responsibility of the Court to protect the liberty of the citizen is called to fore. Liberty is precious to every citizen. ( 13 ) IT is at this stage the responsibility of the Court to protect the liberty of the citizen is called to fore. Liberty is precious to every citizen. It may not be lightly dealt with saying that these are only rustic people belonging to the working class. We are of the view that the liberty of these persons is as important and requires to be protected if it is so required against interference by police or otherwise. The learned Government Advocate submits that no case has been registered against these Govindaraju and Doraiswamy. If that be so, it passes our comprehension as to why they had to be detained in police custody from 11 a. m. on 5-2-1991 till 3. 30 p. m. on 7-2-1991. Perhaps, but for this Habeas Corpus petition, things would have taken ugly turn. However the police officer, when present yesterday, would try to be clever and then inform the Court without any sense or responsibility that these persons were not taken into police custody. We are clearly of the view that what he stated was nothing but falsehood and there by he tried to misguide the court as though all was well. On the contrary, we find there was something rotten in the State of Denmark. We cannot allow such things to happen under the very shadow of the High Court, in the premier City of Bangalore, leave alone in rural areas. We would have expected the Sub-Inspector at least to have that much of courtesy to say that these persons were taken for interrogation on the complaint of the parents of Sudha. As to why he uttered falsehood, he alone should explain. We thought we can get explanataion from him and we turned to the learned Government Advocate. He also pleads his inability to answer stating that he is not aware as to why the Sub-Inspector is absent. All that we are constrained to state is that the liberty of these poor citizens cannot be trampled in this way. Look at the agony caused to Govindaraju and Doraiswamy by their being taken into custody. Look at the suffering they had undergone by way of beating. Look at their loss of earning. Look at the poor woman being obliged to seek recourse by way of Habeas Corpus spending sizable amount in engaging a counsel. Look at the agony caused to Govindaraju and Doraiswamy by their being taken into custody. Look at the suffering they had undergone by way of beating. Look at their loss of earning. Look at the poor woman being obliged to seek recourse by way of Habeas Corpus spending sizable amount in engaging a counsel. All this would not have happened but for the improper action of the Sub-Inspector. Therefore, we cannot but express our strongest displeasure at the conduct of this Sub-Inspector who for no fault of these persons (Govindaraju and Doraiswamy) were taken under police custody and kept under detention even a formal complaint. Adding himself to the injury, they are obliged to part with sizable sum of money of Rs. 500/- towards diesel charges and yet another sum of Rs. 700/-, without But for the timely help of Subramani we do not know to what predicament these two persons or even the petitioner Susheelamma would have been placed. The conduct of the Sub-Inspector is to be abhorred. Now, Govindaraju and Doraiswamy have been released, thanks to our ready interference. Besides expressing our strongest displeasure with the conduct of this Sub-Inspector which we have done above, we think the ends of justice would be met by awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,500/- in favour of petitioner Susheelamma. This amount shall be paid personally by the Sub-Inspector (Sri Chikkanna), Jnanabharathi police station on or before 31-3-1991 and the payment shall be made by Demand Draft drawn on a Nationalised Bank and sent in the name of Smt. Susheelamma (petitioner) by means of a registered post. ( 14 ) THE Registrar is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary Government of Karnataka, for such proper action as he deems fit. After we pronounced the judgment, we requested learned Advocate General to assist us in the matter since the said Sub-Inspector made an entry at 12 noon. His statement recorded is to the following effect : "sudha's parents made complaint to me on 5-2-1991 morning. I am not in a position to recollect their names. I have never enquired their names. Parents of Sudha told me that Babu and Sudha are loving each other and they wanted Sudha to marry Babu. Babui's parents are not willing. Therefore, they wanted to perform the marriage of Babu and Sudha at Bangalore itself. I am not in a position to recollect their names. I have never enquired their names. Parents of Sudha told me that Babu and Sudha are loving each other and they wanted Sudha to marry Babu. Babui's parents are not willing. Therefore, they wanted to perform the marriage of Babu and Sudha at Bangalore itself. Babu and Sudha managed to go to Dharmastala on 3-2-1981. Parents of Babu went to trouble the parents of Sudha. Then only the parents of Sudha came to know that Babu and Sudha have gone to Dharmstala. Doraiswamy brought back Babu and Sudhaund the parents of Babu left Sudha in the KSRTC bus-stand. Babu ran away. Sudha came to her parents and her parents came to police station and told that Sudha has loved Babu and want to marry him. I called the father of Babu and he told that Babu was not there. Yesterday Govindaraju and Doraiswamy came to the police station and they were waiting till 3. 30 p. m. I made the statement in the Court, yesterday to the effect that Govindaraju and Doraiswamy were not taken into police custody. They were waiting in the station premises and I have not reduced anything in writing. There was no written complaint from Sudha's parents. Doraiswamy and Govindaraju voluntarily came to the police station and I have not taken them to custody. I am sure of what I am saying. They were waiting in police station till yesterday 3. 30 p. m. On 5-2-1991 they came to police station and wanted to trace Babu. They were waiting for Babu in the police station and they were sleeping in the police station premises. I never asked them to go to their house. They were there on their own. I had made a statement yesterday through Government Advocate that they were not taken into custody. I have sent Doraiswamy with P. C. 2395 to Vellore. After they returned I did not met them. I have no idea how far Vellore is from Bangalore. I have asked them to go to Vellore in a vehicle. I do not know Gangadharan. Sudha's parents were having the vehicle. I am not aware who paid for diesel. I am not aware whether 46 litres of diesel was required I am not aware the cost would be Rs. 266-34. They might have taken diesel. No amount was demanded from Susheelamma. I do not know Gangadharan. Sudha's parents were having the vehicle. I am not aware who paid for diesel. I am not aware whether 46 litres of diesel was required I am not aware the cost would be Rs. 266-34. They might have taken diesel. No amount was demanded from Susheelamma. I am not aware of the transaction. Police people told that they have returned already from Vellore I am not aware of getting Rs. 700/- for settling this matter. What I have stated yesterday is not correct, I have put in 9 years of service. I am a direct recruit. I had four postings before coming to Bangalore. I have no black mark. I know the consequences of telling falsehood. " we hold that this statement is not true. Apart from not being true, he has also, as stated by us in our judgment, tried to be clever and mislead the Court. We find this as reprehensible conduct most unbecoming of a Sub-Inspector. We place on record the assistance rendered by the learned Advocate General with sense of appreciation. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .