Case Analysis of the CA decision of Pegawai Penyiasat Jeinthan Ananthakrishnan v Ananthagopi
- Gavin Jayapal
- Oct 13, 2025
- 6 min read
The Government is a behemoth-like monolith. It tends to be single-minded in its determination (and obsessions) and one finds it difficult to fathom precisely where a Minister (or Ministry) may stand on any particular issue.
To achieve its ends, the Government has various enforcement divisions. The division discussed in Ananthagopi was that of the Royal Malaysian Police (Police).
The facts
The facts of Ananthagopi are straightforward. Ananthagopi was an Indian National. He landed in Malaysia on 07.03.2020 and had a return ticket for 23.03.2020.
As luck would have it, COVID struck and the world went into lockdown. On 19.03.2020, the DG of Immigration issued a document entitled the Exemption of Special Pass during Movement Control Order (‘MCO’). The effect of this letter was that all visitors who became stranded in Malaysia due to the MCO could lawfully remain in Malaysia even though the validity period of their immigration passes may have expired (paras 4-6 of the HC’s Grounds).
Enter the Police
On 10.10.2020, Ananthagopi was at his friend’s house in Port Dickson. The police arrested him (ironically, whilst investigating the theft of a statue from a temple) and brought him to a police station. They did not inform him of the reason of arrest, nor did they ask him for any documentation.
Ananthagopi’s passport was in a sling bag but despite this, the police did not retrieve it.
The police’s version of events
The police, on the other hand, painted a picture of being impeccable gentlemen. They claimed that the house door was open. They politely introduced themselves and asked for identification. Ananthagopi could only show documents on his phone and as a result, he was arrested.
Upon arrest, the arresting officer (Inspector Jeinthan) lodged a police report on 15.08.2020. In it, he never made mention of any breach of the Immigration Act.
However, on 27.10.2020, Inspector Jeinthan lodged a second police report and now claimed that S. 6(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1959/63 had been breached.
Unlawful arrest and custody
Despite knowledge of the Exemption Order, Ananthagopi was unlawfully detained for a period of 12 days before he was charged. He was then detained for a further 18 days before they released him.
Findings of the High Court
At paragraphs 42 to 72, Azizul J (presiding JCA) outlined the various legal provisions guaranteeing a person’s liberty. Reference was made to the various acts which enabled a valid arrest to be made.
The learned HCJ specifically noted that there was a major discrepancy in the manner of arrest. His Lordship noted that immediately after arrest, no reference was made to the Immigration Act. However, some 16 days later, a corrective report was lodged to include this (paras. 73-76).
His Lordship concluded that the arrest and detention were unlawful. At para. 76:
i. The police failed to inform him of the reason for arrest;
ii. The police had denied Ananthagopi the right to retrieve his passport;
iii. Most egregiously, the police had arrested Ananthagopi in clear defiance of the law;
Irregularities were also pointed-out with regard to the arrest and detention (paras. 77-79). In allowing a claim for false imprisonment, His Lordship carefully distinguished between a lawful and unlawful arrest:
[80] As explained at paras, 63 to 72 ante, the general rule is that no claim for unlawful arrest or false imprisonment may be made in respect of the period of detention after the arrested person has been charged in court. An important exception to the general rule is the principle established in Hassan Marsom v Mohd Hady Ya’akop, which is that the shield accorded by s 32(1) of the Police Act 1967 may be vitiated where the police there had failed to adhere to the requirements of law that had led or caused the remand order being issued by the court.
[81] On the facts of the present case, I was of the view that the exception to the general rule did not apply, as the existence of the 19 March 2020 circular had been brought to the attention of the court. There was thus an intervening act in the chain of causation. No further elaboration will be necessary for the present purposes, as no appeal has been lodged by the plaintiff against my determination.
[82] In summary, while the plaintiff succeeded in establishing unlawful arrest and detention up to 22 October 2020, no liability lay with Inspector Jeinthan in connection with the plaintiff’s detention after that date.
The Court found the Government of Malaysia vicariously liable (paras. 89-96) and granted damages of RM225,000, together with costs of RM30,000.
The appeal
The CA delivered its decision on 29.08.2025. Having emphatically affirmed the HC’s findings, the CA further observed:
[29] Secondly, it is not in dispute here that after the Respondent was arrested in the car, he was detained for 12 days before he was charged in the Magistrates Court. The Appellants however tried justifying that the time taken was reasonable because of the need to verify the authenticity of the Respondent’s passport and visa as well as applicability of the Circular. The Appellants ultimately found that the Respondent’s passport and visa are genuine notwithstanding that the latter had expired. Likewise, the Circular was indeed issued by the Malaysian Immigration Department but in force during the period of MCO. The Circular however, has thereafter been replaced by the Recovery Movement Control Order (“RMCO”).
[30] Upon our review, we concur with the learned High Court judge that the First Appellant was callous by having persisted to detain the Respondent notwithstanding he knew of the existence of the Circular. Furthermore, the original passport of the Respondent has been produced to him shortly after the Respondent was brought to the Seremban police contingent headquarters. Although, the MCO has been replaced by the RMCO, we do not think that this has made a material difference on the facts and circumstances of this case.
[31] Further still, we are also of the view that the 12 days which had elapsed to investigate the Respondent’s immigration status is prima facie unreasonable in this current age of electronic data and information storage and retrieval. The Appellants did not provide cogent detailed account of the length of investigative time taken, particularly problems that were encountered by them to satisfy the court as to its reasonableness. This is unacceptable particularly when a man’s liberty is denied during this period of investigation in infringement of his rights under Art. 5 of the Federal Constitution.
[32] As a result of the cavalier conduct of the First Appellant in the course of his employment, it follows that the Second Appellant must be vicariously liable as his employer. Thus, we concur with the finding of the learned High Court judge that they must both be liable to the Respondent for wrongful arrest and detention.
The CA proceeded to dismiss the appeal with costs of RM30,000 (leaving Ananthagopi a cool RM285,000 richer).
Conclusion
These 2 cases serve as a stark reminder to public authorities (with especial regard to enforcement authorities): the Court is always watching.
On a personal note, I am very much heartened by this decision as it clearly shows that the Courts are ever-ready to act as the final bulwark against oppressive conduct of the Executive. One must always have a larger stick.
GAVIN JAYAPAL
The information contained here is for general information purposes only. The writer does not endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the article or the information, products, services, law, cases or related graphics contained herein for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
Consult your solicitor before you undertake any legal action whatsoever. In no event will the writer be held liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this article.
Through this article you are able to link to other websites which are not under the writer’s control. The writer has no control over the nature, content and availability of those sites. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.
Comments