THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.6946 of 2010 Date: 01.04.2010 Between: Nookala Bhoomanna … Petitioner and Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District, Adilabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.6946 of 2010 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel appearing 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 in this writ petition is that his son viz., Nookala Ashok, s/o. Nookala Bhumanna, aged about 18 years, resident of Tirupalli village, Lakshmanachanda Mandal, Adilabad District, was illegally detained by 3rd respondent Sub- Inspector of Police, Nirmal Rural Police Station, Nirmal, Adilabad District, on 19.3.2010 and hence he seeks production of his son before this Court and set him at liberty. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by 3rd respondent Sub- Inspector of Police, Nirmal Rural Police Station, Nirmal, Adilabad District, stating inter alia that the alleged detenu was arrested on 25.3.2010 in connection with Crime No.22 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 454 and 380 IPC and produced before the learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nirmal, Adilabad District, on 26.3.2010, who inturn remanded him to judicial custody. Pursuant to the said order of remand passed by the learned Magistrate, the alleged detenu was now lodged at Sub-Jail, Nirmal. 4. Having regard to the facts stated in the counter affidavit, the question of illegal detention does not arise. 5. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the alleged detenu was, in fact, arrested on 19.3.2010, but not on 25.3.2010 as stated in the counter affidavit. He further contended that the brother of the alleged detenu was subjected to harassment by 3rd respondent. These are all questions of fact, which this Court cannot gone into. In case, if the petitioner has any such grievance, he is at liberty to workout his remedies elsewhere as permissible under law. 6. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 01.04.2010 Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.6946 of 2010 01.04.2010 (Msr)