HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.16891 OF 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General appearing for respondents. This writ of Habeas Corpus is filed, seeking a declaration that the detention of one Lamboru Suribabu, S/o.Simhachalam and Lamboru Satyanarayana, S/o.Appanna Dora, who are in detention in the Central Prison at Visakhapatnam, after being granted bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is unlawful and direct the respondents to produce the said alleged detenus before this Court and set them free. The facts of the case, as stated by Sri K.Balagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in brief are as under: The alleged detenus are wanted in all 21 offences. They are all tribal villagers alleged to be militants/sympathisers of the Maoist party. Different crime numbers were booked against the alleged detenus and they were detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam. The said crime numbers were registered by different police stations. For the sake of convenience, all the 21 cases under which the crimes were registered against the alleged detenus are extracted hereunder: Sl.No. Crime number Police Station 1. 29/2007 G.Madugula 2 28/2007 G.Madugula 3. 26/2007 G.Madugula 4. 22/2007 G.Madugula (already the alleged detenus were acquitted, by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam in Sessions Case No.141 of 2008 by judgment dated 11.12.2008.) 5. 18/2006 G.Madugula 6. 22/2005 G.Madugula 7. 21/2005 G.Madugula 8. 1/2007 Pedabayalu 9. 24/2007 Hukumpeta 10. 35/2007 Pedabayalu 11. 34/2007 Chintapalli 12. 46/2007 Chintapalli 13. 15/2007 A.Annavaram 14. 10/2007 A.Annavaram 15. 6/2007 A.Annavaram 16. 21/2007 Chintapalli 17. 20/2007 Chintapalli 18. 19/2007 Chintapalli 19. 18/2007 Chintapalli 20. 17/2007 Chintapalli 21. 45/2007 Dumbriguda The further details, as furnished and which are not dispute, are that crime numbers in items 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 were registered by G.Madugula, Pedabayalu, Hukumpet and Chintapalli police stations, as indicated above in the list and the alleged detenus were enlarged on bail on 30.07.2008 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paderu. Insofar as the offences mentioned in items 12 to 20, the alleged detenus were ordered to be released on bail on 18.07.2008 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chintapalli. Despite the orders granted by the Court, to release them, they could not be released on account of their alleged involvement in other offences pertaining to other crimes, which were registered in items 1 to 3, 5 to 10 and 11 and 21. Insofar as crime number in item No.4 i.e., Cr.No.22/2007 of G.Madugula police station, charge sheet was filed, trial was conducted and eventually the alleged detenus were acquitted, by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam in Sessions Case No.141 of 2008 by judgment dated 11.12.2008. Therefore, the alleged detenus obtained bail on two different dates insofar as crime numbers mentioned in items 1 to 3, 5 to 10 and 12 to 20. However, in Cr.No.34/2007, in item No.11 of Chintapalli police station and Crime No.45/2007 of Dumbriguda police station, no bail applications were filed nor they were ordered to be released. However, they were released on bail on 21.08.2008 and 25.09.2008, respectively, by the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, and Judicial First Class Magistrate., Araku, respectively. What is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that despite the orders of release on bail, by the respective courts, the alleged detenus were not released on account of the fact that the alleged detenus were required in Cr.No.34/2007 and also in Cr.No.45/2007 of Chintapalli and Dumbriguda police stations, respectively. The further complaint is that the police having knowledge that the alleged detenus were already released on bail and the Non- bailable warrants were issued by the concerned courts, for their non appearance on the date of hearing, and upon such issuance of warrants, the police of concerned police station have filed applications seeking issuance of P.T.Warrants. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends that as of now the alleged detenus are not in lawful remand in any offence; they are in unlawful detention by virtue of the N.B.Ws executed without the authority of law in 8 offences by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chintapalli on 18.09.2008 and in 5 offences by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paderu. It is rather most unfortunate thing to be noted that the concerned police station having knowledge that the alleged detenus were already in the prison did not inform the courts that no N.B.Ws, need be issued for the simple reason that they have been remanded to judicial custody. The further aggravating factor is that filing of petitions seeking issuance of P.T.warrants, which is absolutely not necessary. The police officials though belong to different police stations and though the alleged detenus are required in different crimes within the jurisdiction of different police stations are expected to have knowledge about the various kinds of offences, particularly when the alleged detenus were taken into judicial custody on account of their alleged involvement in militant activities. From the above, it is obvious that there was no required cohesion between the police stations in the agency areas, for the present in the agency areas of Visakhapatnam, as regards the detention of accused/alleged detenus on different counts. At this juncture, it is contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Advocate General, that some applications were filed by the learned counsel representing the alleged detenus seeking adjournments to condone their absence on account of their ill health. Here again, we have to put on record that all the things are not well in the agency areas with this kind of incoherent atmosphere, circumstances and administration. In our view, the ultimate sufferers are the alleged detenus who are legally entitled to have right of liberty by the intervention of Courts. Therefore, we are of the considered view that any amount of more care and diligence in all respects is expected to be ensured to prevail in these forest and neglected areas. The civic society shall not be given to understand that the instrumentalities of the State with no exception to the investigating agencies or the legal fraternity or the judicial fraternity have been proceeding with their respective statutory and constitutional obligations in a mild fashion. In other words, this Court expects that the same amount of quality of administration and other security measures, both sociological as well as legal, should be ensured to those persons who have been strewn away from the civic society. There shall not be any depletion whatsoever in any respect from any quarter of the society in this regard. Precisely, it is the lacking that made the alleged detenus to continue in the judicial remand, despite the fact that they were directed to be released on bail in almost all the cases, barring a couple of cases. It is further agonising factor that in those couple of crimes viz., Cr.No.34/2007 and Cr.No.45/2007 of Chintapalli and Dumbriguda police stations, respectively, the alleged detenus were directed to be released by the competent courts by orders, dated 21.08.2008 and 25.09.2008, respectively. With the last order, dated 25.09.2008 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Araku, the alleged detenus were freed from all the shackles of confinement judicially and they were entitled to have liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is rather unfortunate that the alleged detenus have been in prison by way of judicial remand, who are otherwise entitled to have the right of liberty, even as on 25.09.2008, only because of lack of standards of communication between different areas of administration, as already pointed out. The blame for this malady cannot be attributed to one institution or to one organ of the State and on the contrary it is to be distributed and be shared by different institutions at different levels. Keeping in view the sorrow state of affairs that are prevalent in the agency areas, as was already pointed out, we are not proposing to proceed any further in this regard against any of the institutions. But, our serious concern, as expressed above, if treated as a caution to various institutions, which have its own share in this violation, we have no doubt that the objects of the constitution would be carried out with more efficacy. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed, at the stage of admission, directing the respondents to release the alleged detenus forthwith, if they are not required in any other offences, other than the offences, already listed above i.e., Sl.No. Crime number Police Station 1. 29/2007 G.Madugula 2 28/2007 G.Madugula 3. 26/2007 G.Madugula 4. 22/2007 G.Madugula (already the alleged detenus were acquitted, by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam in Sessions Case No.141 of 2008 by judgment dated 11.12.2008.) 5. 18/2006 G.Madugula 6. 22/2005 G.Madugula 7. 21/2005 G.Madugula 8. 1/2007 Pedabayalu 9. 24/2007 Hukumpeta 10. 35/2007 Pedabayalu 11. 34/2007 Chintapalli 12. 46/2007 Chintapalli 13. 15/2007 A.Annavaram 14. 10/2007 A.Annavaram 15. 6/2007 A.Annavaram 16. 21/2007 Chintapalli 17. 20/2007 Chintapalli 18. 19/2007 Chintapalli 19. 18/2007 Chintapalli 20. 17/2007 Chintapalli 21. 45/2007 Dumbriguda However, there shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to 1) all the unit heads i.e., Principal District and Sessions Judges, with a direction to follow the guidelines in this order and circulate sufficient number of copies of this order to all the Judicial Officers, under their control i.e., from the cadre of Additional District Judges to Junior Civil Judges. 2) The Directorate of Prosecution, Government of A.P., Hyderabad, 3) Law Secretaries (Law and Justice, Legislative), Government of A.P., Hyderabad, 4) The Superintendents of Police in the State and 5) The Principal Secretary, Home department, Government of A.P., A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad, with a direction to follow the guidelines in this order and circulate sufficient number of copies of this order to all the Police officers upto to the rank of Station House Officer. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 15.09.2009. Lmv