IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.22622 OF 2010 Between: A.C.Ramesha … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.22622 OF 2010 ORDER: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) This writ petition, in the form of a writ of Habeas Corpus, is filed by the petitioner for production of the petitioner’s father viz., A.C.Chennappa, before this Court and order for his release. It is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner’s father went to Tirumala for Darshanam of Lord Venkateshwara on 17.04.2010 and when he was standing in the queue along with the brother of the petitioner to have a Darshanam in the queue complex upto 11:30 A.M. on 18.04.2010 and when the compartment was opened both of them proceeded in the queue upto 16th compartment of Vaikuntam Que Complex-1. At laddu token issue point the father of the petitioner was found missing and on that the brother of the petitioner lodged a complaint with I Town Police station, Tirumala-respondent No.2, which was registered as F.I.R.No.6 of 2010, on 20.04.2010, under the head of man missing and so far, the police failed to trace out the whereabouts of the petitioner’s father. Hence, the writ petition. The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station-respondent No.2 filed counter stating that after registering the crime, under the head of man missing, he examined the brother of the complainant and the complainant/petitioner herein and prepared a look out notice and circulated to all the police stations in the State as well as the bordering police stations and also pasted them in Tirumala Bus Sand and Tirupati Railway Station and Bus-stand, Choultries and all other conspicuous places and requested to pass on the information, if any, clues come forth about the alleged detenu. The same was also placed in the internet and circulated to all the police stations in the State with similar request. The Sub-Inspector of Police along with his staff visited various places in Tirumala i.e., Annadanam Canteen, Kalyana Katta, Bedi Anjaneyaswamy Temple, four Mada Streets, Pilgrims Amenities Complex I, II and III, Papavinasanam, Akasa Ganga, Gogarbham Dam, Japali Anjaneyaswamy temple, Thumbura Theertham, Sita Thoranam, Srivari Padalu and Tirupati to trace the missing person, but in vain. He deputed two constables to visit bordering police stations to serve crime memos and to make enquiries about the unidentified dead bodies in their police station limits at the age group of missing person. Accordingly, those two constables visited all the bordering police station, but could not elicit any useful information. While so, the petitioner visited the police station on 12.05.2010 and informed that he received a phone call from cell No.8125796731 on 10.05.2010 from one Satish that the missing person is along with him. When the petitioner tried to contact him, his cell phone is found switched off. On the said information, the Superintendent of Police (Admn), Tirupathi addressed a letter to the Manager, TATA Indicom, to issue the call details of the said cell phone number from 05.05.2010 till 12.05.2010 and accordingly they have furnished the required information. Thereafter he called said Satish to know as to whether the missing person was with him, but he pleaded his ignorance and stated that he did not make any such call. Thereafter the Inspector along with his staff visited Railway Station, Bus Stands, Srinivasam complex and also Akshaya Kshetram near Durgasamudram, but could not locate the father of the petitioner. Since the police already registered a crime under man missing and investigated about the missing of the father of the petitioner and since the alleged detenu has not been illegally detained, issuance of the writ of Habeas Corpus for production of the alleged detenu into the Court does not arise. Suffice, if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to complete the investigation as early as possible and file necessary report into the competent court having jurisdiction in that regard, by marking a copy of the report filed into the Court to the petitioner. On filing of such report by respondent No.2, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedies available to him, in accordance with law. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 28th September 2010 LMV