THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P Nos.6097 & 6099 of 2007 Date: 15.7.2010 Between: Adapa Venkanna @ Kranti Kiran @ Srinivasarao and others. …………Petitioners/accused No.1 & 2 And The State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ….Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P Nos.6097 & 6099 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are filed by the same petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2 in the respective cases. Crl.P.No.6097 of 2007 is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.731 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Vijayawada City for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 read with Sections 511, 414 and 411 IPC. Crl.P.No.6099 of 2007 is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.733 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Vijayawada City for the offence under Sections 457 & 380 IPC. Since common questions of law and facts would arise for consideration in both the Criminal Petitions, they are disposed of by the following the common order. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. According to the prosecution, the petitioners 1 & 2 are the habitual offenders and they were involved in several offences. Out of the two petitioners, petitioner No.2 died. The petitioners were arrested on 19.5.2007 at about 15.00 hours, at D.No.50-90, Bapulapadu, Hanuman Junction of Krishnalanka Police Station limits. In the presence of mediators, the stolen properties relating to the above mentioned crimes were recovered from them. It is also the version of the prosecution that the defacto complainant (the owner of the stolen property) identified the said properties during the course of identification proceedings conducted in the presence of the mediators on 22.5.2007. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the wife of the 2nd petitioner by name T.Durga filed Writ Petition No.2576 of 2007 stating that the petitioner No.2 was illegally arrested and wrongfully confined by the police and seeking relief for issuance of the writ of Habeas Corpus before this Court and according to the petitioners, the said T.Gurga, the wife of the 2nd petitioner filed Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court 10 days prior to the alleged arrest of the petitioners. It is also the version of the petitioners that only on coming to know about the filing of the W.P.No.2576 of 2007 seeking writ of Habeas Corpus, the Police registered the cases against the petitioners and the petitioners were ultimately implicated by the police in several cases relating to various police stations. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the mere arrest relied upon by the police supposed to have been made on 19.5.2009 and the alleged recoveries are absolutely false, and, both the charge sheets have to be quashed. I absolutely see no force in the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners. There is no material on record to show that the petitioners were either in judicial custody or in police custody on the alleged date of arrest. The mere fact that the wife of the 2nd petitioner filed Habeas Corpus Petition ten days prior to the arrest of the 2nd petitioner does not mean that the 2nd petitioner is taken by the police in to the custody on the said date. In the absence of any proof, it is not possible for this Court to entirely rest its decision on the mere circumstance that Habeas Corpus Petition was filed 10 days prior to the alleged arrest of the accused. Both the charge sheets filed by the police after investigation clearly indicates that the petitioners were arrested in the presence of the mediators and the said stolen properties were also identified by the owners of those properties. It is not the case where from me verifying the material placed on record to arrive at a conclusion that there is no ground to show that the petitioners were involved in the alleged offences. On the aforesaid analysis, I do not find any merit in both the criminal petitions and accordingly, dismiss them. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Date: 15.07.2010 mrb