IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 3891 of 2008 Between: Farzana Begum, W/o. Mohd. Ayub, R/o. H.No. 19-3-294/180/A, Vattapally, Falaknuma, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to For the reasons stated in the "Telegram" dated 22- 02-2008 sent by the Petitioner herein, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an Order, direction, or a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce the Petitioner's husband, namely Mohd. Ayub, before this Hon'ble Court, who is illegally detained since 12-02-2008 at about 11.00 A.M. by the police, Hayathnagar without assigning any reasons. The police not allowed the Petitioner to meet her husband and threatening to implicate in false cases and apprehending danger to his life and set him at liberty forthwith and to pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:TELEGRAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : Order: (per TCSR, J) This is a taken up writ on the strength of a Telegram dated 22-2-2008 sent by the petitioner herein to this Court. Thereafter notices have been directed to be issued to the Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District and also to the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District. Inter alia in the telegram the petitioner complained of wrongful detention of her husband by the 1st respondent. Pursuant to the notices issued by this Court the respondents appeared and thereafter filed a counter-affidavit alleging inter alia that on account of the complaint given by one More Bheema Rao, a case was registered against the alleged detenu and he was sent to judicial custody on being produced before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate. In the counter- affidavit in para 3 and 4 it has been specifically averred that a case in Cr.No.736 of 2007 under Sections 420, 463, 464, 467, 468 and 474 of IPC has been registered against the alleged detenu and investigation commenced by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hayathnagar police station. It is further solemnly affirmed that when the investigation discloses a prima facie case against the alleged detenu, the Investigating Officer visited the house of the alleged detenu on more than one occasion and found him absconding. It is further averred that on 25-2-2008 as the detenu was available at his residence at Chanchalguda, the Investigating Officer visited his house and summoned him to attend the Police Station and after necessary interrogation when it revealed his involvement prima facie in the case, he was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class seeking judicial custody and accordingly he was remanded to judicial custody and thereafter he was lodged in the Central Prison, Cherlapally. No material has been placed before us on behalf of the petitioner to rebut the said averments made by the Circle Inspector of Police who was the Investigating Officer. Therefore, there is nothing on record for us to legitimately conclude that this is a case of alleged wrongful detention. Recording the averments made, inter alia, in the counter- affidavit by the Circle Inspector of police, we are inclined to close the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is closed with no order as to costs. Anil R. Dave, CJ T.Ch.Surya Rao, J 11th March, 2008 GRR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies