IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 21020 of 2008 Between: Hilda Mary, W/o. Late Bose, 16, Kennedy Street, Ranchidapuram,Trichy - 20, Tamilnadu. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Tirupathy, Chittoor District. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor 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 "Letter" dated NIL 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 daughter of the Petitioner Sahaya Rani, aged 27 years, W/o. Kanan, and Kanan S/o. Sundram of 16, Kennedy Street, Ranjithapuram, Trichy - 20, before this Hon'ble Court, who were illegally detained since 17/09/2008 by the police Tirupathy, Chittoor District, apprehending danger to their lives and set them 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:LETTER Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.21020 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is taken up on the basis of letter addressed by the petitioner – Ms. Hilda Mary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court alleging that on 17-09-2008, her daughter, Ms. Sahaya Rani, aged 27 years and Kanan S/o Sundaram, have been taken away by the police in Tirupathi within K.K.Nagar Police limits, without any reason and illegally detained since 17-09-2008 and she apprehends danger to their lives, and requested to treat the letter as habeas corpus petition. 2. Pursuant to the notice, the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Tirupathi, has ﬁled an aﬃdavit, inter alia, stating that the alleges detenus have not been illegally detained by the police. Coming to the alleged detention of Ms. Sahaya Rani, it is categorically stated that no case is either registered or pending against her and she is not required in any criminal case as of now and as such, she has not been detained at any point of time. 3. In regard to the alleged illegal detention of Kanan, the relevant portion of the affidavit reads as follows: “However, the alleged detenu No.2 is accused No.3 in Cr.No.216/2008 for the oﬀence under Section 379 IPC of Central Crime Station, Tirupathi. The above referred crime was registered on 1-8-2008. Six persons including alleged detenu No.2 were involved in the above referred crime. From the date of registration of the above crime, the alleged detenu No.2 has been absconding. The involvement of the alleged detenu No.2 in the above crime came to light when the Central Crime Station Police, Tirupathi, arrested one R.Gurunathan @ Guru on 29-09-2008 in connection with Cr.No.162/2008. The said Gurunathan @ Guru in his confessional statement dated 29-09-2008 categorically stated that he along with alleged detenu No.2 and others committed theft of a brief case containing Rs.11,00,000/- from a stationed bus at Tirupati Bus Stand on 01-8-2008, which is the outcome of Cr.No.216/2008. Basing on the said confessional statement, the alleged detenu No.2 was included as an accused in Cr.No.216/2008. As stated above, from the date of registration of the crime, the alleged detenu No.2 has been absconding. The Central Crime Station Police, Tirupathi, are making sincere eﬀorts to apprehend the absconded accused including the alleged detenu No.2. As and when the alleged detenu is apprehended, he will be produced before the concerned Court for his remand. It is relevant to point out here that the alleged detenu No.2 is a habitual oﬀender and an active member of Attention Diversion Gang of Tamilnadu State. They are in the habit of committing thefts by diverting the attention of the general public. The copies of the FIRs in Cr.Nos.162/2008 and 216/2008, Confessional Statement of A-1 in Cr.No.162/2008 and Remand Report in Cr.No.162/2008 are ﬁled herewith as material papers for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.” 4. A perusal of the aﬃdavit clearly shows that the daughter of the petitioner, Ms. Sahaya Rani has not been illegally detained. This fact is not controverted by the petitioner, by ﬁling the reply and the aﬃdavit is sworn by the Inspector of Police, CCS – Tirupathi, and its contents are stated on oath. 5. Coming to the alleged detenu–Kanan, it is stated in the aﬃdavit that he is involved in the crime and his involvement in crime has been narrated, which is extracted hereinabove. A reading of the extracted portion makes it clear that Kanan, alleged detenu, is an habitual oﬀender and is absconding and as and when he is apprehended, he will be produced before the court for remand. Thus, there is no illegal detention of this detenu also. 6. Apart from the above, copies of FIR in Cr.No.162 of 2008 of CCS Tirupathi and Cr.No.216 of 2008 of the same CCS support the averments in the aﬃdavit, which are a matter of record. It is thus clear that Sahaya Rani has not been detained and is not required in any crime and Kanan, who is involved in the crime, has been absconding and the police are trying to apprehend him. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the alleged detenus have been illegally detained and as such, the proceedings cannot be continued. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 16-10-2008 bsc