IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 19717 of 2008 Between: Kvati Swathi W/o. Chinna @ Prasad R/o. Stuartpuram Village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Superintendent of Police, Guntur District at Guntur. 3 Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubanagar. 4 Sambaiah S/o. Not Known Veddulapalli Police Station, Guntur District. 5 The Station House Officer, Kothakota Police Station, Mahabubnagar 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents 1 to 5 to produce the petitioner's husband by name Kavati Chinna @ Prasad, S/o. Prakasa Rao, Aged 25 years, R/o. Stuartpuram Village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District before this Hon'ble Court and to set him be free in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.19717 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband, by name Kavati Chinna @ Prasad, is a law abiding citizen and he was never indulged in any crime, at any point of time; that, on 02.09.2008, ten police personnel from the ﬁfth respondent police station came in mufti, in a Tata Sumo vehicle, and tried to abduct her husband; that when her mother-in- law and herself tried to intervene, one person from the said police brandished his pistol and threatened to shoot the petitioner and thereupon they forcibly took away her husband without any authority of law and he did not turn so far and that the police stated that they would verify the antecedents of the detenu and let him free on the next day. But, release of the detenu has not been effected so far. 3. In the counter aﬃdavit, ﬁled by the Inspector of Police, Kothakota Circle, Mahabubnagar District, and also holding additional charge of Station House Oﬃcer, Kothakota Police Station, it is stated that one Madamshetti Bhanu Prakash, son of Pandurangaiah, lodged a compliant with Kothakota Police station stating that, on the intervening night of 30.06.2008/01.07.2008, himself, his wife and his two children were sleeping in the bed room, his mother was sleeping in the Hall, and his father went to Hyderabad, on some business work; that, while so, some unknown oﬀenders gained entry into his house, at midnight, by opening the cross bold latch of main door, and assaulted his mother with sticks and threatened her with dire consequences, with a knife; that then they took away several gold ornaments from her mother; that the oﬀenders tied the hands and legs of his mother and asked her to give the almyrah keys and, after securing the said keys, they entered the room and opened the almyrah and had taken gold ornaments; that a cash of Rs.20,000/- and one Cell Phone with SIM Card were also taken away and that, subsequently, a complaint was lodged in Kothakota Police Station, which was registered as Crime No.98 of 2008, for the oﬀence punishable under section 394 I.P.C. 4. It is also stated in the counter aﬃdavit that, pursuant to registration of the said crime, investigation was pressed into service and, during the course of investigation, police got information that the user of the cell phone was traced and, basing on that information, on 08.09.2008, at 13.00 hours, the investigating oﬃcer along with his staﬀ and panchas rushed to Vijayawada City and traced out the user of the cell phone, who disclosed that one Mukthi Chinna i.e., the accused No.6 in the above crime had taken the said SIM on his name and is using the cell phone; that thereafter the investigating oﬃcer recovered the cell phone from his possession under a cover of panchanama; that the accused No.6 lead the police and panchas to the house of the accused No.5; that, consequently, the other accused were also traced out and eventually the accused No.1, who is no other than the husband of the petitioner, was also traced, who confessed that he committed the above oﬀence along with accused Nos. 2 to 5 in the above crime. 5. It is also further stated in the counter aﬃdavit that part of the stolen property was also recovered from the husband of the petitioner; that, subsequently, the accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 were taken into custody, since the accused No.2 was absconding, while the accused Nos.3 and 4 were brought on P.T. Warrant from the Central Prison, Rajahmundry, and District Jail, Anantapur, respectively, and produced before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Wanaparthy, on 09.09.2008, and, consequently, all of them, including the alleged detenu, were sent to judicial custody and at present they are lodged in District Jail, Mahabubnagar. 6. Having regard to the revelations in the counter aﬃdavit, we are of the opinion that interference of this Court into the matter is unwarranted, as the allegations made in the aﬃdavit, ﬁled by the petitioner, do not appear to be true and genuine. 7. For the foregoing, the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 25.09.2008 kvsn