THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.10792 of 2010 ORDER: (Per VE,J) This is a taken up writ petition for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus basing upon the telegram dated 23.04.2010 sent by the petitioner alleging that his son namely Pradipta Mahopatra, who was returning from the Court of Railway Guntur, after acquittal in some case, was illegally detained since 22.04.2010 by the Government Railway Police, Palasa and he is apprehending danger to the life of his son. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent- Station House Officer, Railway Police, Palasa stating that the alleged detenu is accused in Cr.No.50/2010 registered under Sections 379(1) (d) IPC of Palasa Railway Station, Srikakulam District; that the said crime was registered on 23.04.2010 based on the complaint given by one Vikash Pareek, R/o.SBI Officers Quartes, HC Block, Saltlake, Purulia District, West Bengal State stating that while he was traveling along with his sisters in Train No.2704, Falaknuma Express from Secunderabad to Kharagpur in A.1 coach, berth Nos.23, 29 and 30 and when the train reached near Srikakulam Road Railway station on 23.04.2010 at 6.00 hours an unknown offender committed theft of one hand bag containing two cell phones and keys, worth Rs.5,000/- and decamped with the booty; that during the course of investigation, the accused was arrested on 23.04.2010 and he is said to have confessed the said offence and that after complying with the formalities, the alleged detenu was produced before II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Visakhapatnam on 24.04.2010 and the learned Magistrate remanded him to judicial custody. It is also stated that pursuant to the said remand order, the alleged detenu was lodged at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam. It is further stated that the alleged detenu is habitual railway offender and he is involved in five similar crimes in 2009. Since the alleged detenu has been detained at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam by following due process of law, the allegation of the petitioner that the alleged detenu has been illegally detained by the first respondent cannot be countenanced. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: 12-05-2010 va