THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.6855 of 2010 Date: 21-6-2010 Between Smt. Shajeda Shaheen … Petitioner and The Director General of Police, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad & Others. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.6855 of 2010 Order: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of habeas corpus for production of petitioner’s husband-Faheem stating that on 4.3.2010, the second respondent along with his personnel came to her house, asked her husband about her mother, and that her husband informed that he did not know the whereabouts of the mother of the petitioner. Later, the second respondent summoned the alleged detenu to a guest house near Raj Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad for three days and left him. While so, on 23.3.2010 at 9.30 p.m., her husband-alleged detenu went out of the house to get Horlicks to her daughter, but did not return home. On the complaint lodged by her, the third respondent registered a case in Crime No.218 of 2010 as ‘man missing’, but till now, no steps have been taken. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is clearly stated that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.218 of 2010 was registered under the head of ‘man missing’ and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, it was noticed that the alleged detenu was found along with one Sridhar Goud on the missing date i.e. on 23.3.2010 at about 7.00 p.m., that on such information, the investigating officer visited the house of Sridhar Goud, who is the friend of the alleged detenu, but his house was locked and his mobile was also switched off. A look out notice was prepared and sent to all the Police Stations in the State and also to the neighbouring States. Apart from that, his missing particulars were also sent to CCRB, Cyberabad. On the enquiries caused with the C.B.I. officers, it was disclosed that they examined the alleged detenu on 23.3.2010 in connection with Rc.No.4(S)/2010/Mum, dated 1.2.2010 under Section 120-B read with Sections 365,388,302,201 IPC which was registered against the police officials of ATS, Gujrat, STF, Rajasthan and others as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.W.P.No.6/2007, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the C.B.I. to investigate into the Sohrabuddin Encounter Case. Thereafter, the alleged detenu left the C.B.I. Camp Office at 5.30 p.m. on 23.3.2010 along with his friend Sridhar Goud. It is stated that two teams were formed to search the alleged detenu and that the teams are making efforts to trace out the alleged detenu. The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent also discloses that the second respondent never summoned the alleged detenu to the Guest House near Raj Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad for three days as alleged. In fact, the alleged detenu was examined by the C.B.I. on 23.3.2010 at the C.B.I. Camb Office, Dilkusha Guest House, Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad and later he left the C.B.I. Camp Office on the same day at 5.30 p.m. accompanied by his friend Mr.Sridhar Goud. It is stated that the second respondent neither arrested the alleged detenu nor questioned him thereafter. In view of the assertions made in the counter affidavits, no reply has been filed by the petitioner stating that her husband was detained by the second respondent or third respondent officials and the complaint allegations itself disclose that the alleged detenu himself left the house on 23.3.2010 and that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.218 of 2010 was registered under the head of ‘man missing’. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the allegation of the petitioner about the illegal detention of her husband by the police. However, the police shall complete the investigation within a reasonable time preferably within three months from today and file a report before the competent Court having jurisdiction over the area with due intimation to the petitioner. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY ___________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU JUNE 21, 2010. Tsr