IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA And THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 15645 OF 2006 Dated: 9th August, 2006 Between: Md. Afroz s/o Md. Khalid Petitioner AND The Station House Officer, Amberpet Police Station, Hyderabad and another Respondents ORAL ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) This writ petition is registered basing on a telegram, dated 25.07.2006, issued by one Mr. Md. Afroz son of Md. Khalid, to the Honourable the Chief Justice, alleging that the detenue by name Md. Naseeruddin, who is brother of the petitioner, was illegally apprehended by the Amberpet Police Station, Hyderabad, on 14.7.2006. 2. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amberpet Police Station, Hyderabad, filed counter-affidavit stating inter alia that the alleged detenue is the accused in Crime No.329 of 2005, registered for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Crime No.243 of 2006, registered for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code of Amberpet Police Station. It is further stated that the alleged detenue was remanded to judicial custody and was released on bail. It is also stated that in Crime No.329 of 2005, charge sheet is filed before the I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, which is registered as P.R.C.No.8 of 2006 and in Crime No.243 of 2006, though the investigation is completed, charge sheet is yet to be filed. It is also stated that his enquiry revealed that the alleged detenue was apprehended by the Police, Malakpet Police Station, in connection with Crime No.194 of 2006, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. From these revelations, it is clear that the detenue is allegedly required in several offences. In fact, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in Crime No.194 of 2006 of Malakpet Police Station. 4. In view of the averments made in the counter- affidavit, we are of the view that the allegations made in the petition, dated 20.07.2006, and the telegram 25.7.2006 are not genuine. Therefore, we do not see any reason to entertain the present writ petition. 5. The writ petition is accordingly closed with costs. ______________ D.S.R.Varma, J. ___________________ P.Lakshmana Reddy, J. 9th August, 2006 MAS.