HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 28280 OF 2010 Tuesday, the Twenty Fifth day of January, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Farhat Sultana Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The wife of the alleged detenu filed this writ of habeas corpus alleging that her husband Mr. Farees Asrar s/o late M.A.Jaleel, left the house on 26.10.2010 informing that he is going to Baba Nagar on some work. On the same day, at about 10.00 a.m. some unknown people started gathering in front of her house and shouted demanding money from the petitioner saying that her husband is due to them and in that connection, he made phone call to her husband on mobile but she could not reach him as it was switched off. Therefore, she gave police report, but the police did not register any crime. It is stated that even though two weeks have lapsed, there is no information with regard to the whereabouts of her husband and, therefore, she filed the present writ of habeas corpus in November, 2010. Counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent stating that no complaint is received from the petitioner about missing of her husband. On 11.11.2010, the police Kanchanbagh, has received a telegram with regard to the missing of petitioner’s husband and a General Diary Entry was made and enquiry was taken up. The enquiry revealed that the detenu opened a computer institute by name Al Data Solutions at Hafeez Baba Nagar in the limits of Kanchan Bagh Police Station and collected some amounts from the people in connection with the above business and failed to either do the job or return the amount and ultimately closed his Institute in the last week of September, 2010. However, no complaint had been filed in that connection. On enquiry, the third respondent came to know that on complaint by the petitioner herein, the police Pahadi Shareef registered a case of man missing. The other averments made by the petitioner herein are denied. The fourth respondent – Inspector of Police, Pahadi Shareef Police Station, filed counter affidavit stating that the telegram issued by the petitioner about the missing of the alleged detenu was received on 11.11.2010 and after receipt of the telegram, the staff was deputed to the residence of the petitioner and on enquiry came to know that the husband of the petitioner left the house on 26.10.2010 informing her that he was going to his Computer Centre at Babanagar in Kanchanbagh Police Station limits. The petitioner also informed the police that her husband incurred huge debts and the said people are behind him for their money and to avoid them, the detenu left the house. It is stated that on the requisition of the police, the petitioner gave a written complaint and they registered a case in Cr. No. 420 of 2010 on 16.11.2010 under the head Man Missing and took up investigation. On receipt of the information about the filing of writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner was examined and her statement was recorded. It is stated that on the information furnished by the petitioner that her husband might have gone to Bangalore, a letter was addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad seeking permission to visit Bangalore, which is pending. It is also stated that a team was deputed to visit Al Data Solutions, computer institute of the detenu. After filing the counter, this court by order dated 23.11.2010, adjourned the matter by six weeks for filing status report. The Inspector of Police, Pahadi Shareef Police Station, had informed the office of the Advocate General that all the particulars of the missing man were collected and a message was sent to Cyber Control look out notices were prepared and despathed to all the Station House Officers of Cyberabad and Hyderabad and the police stations of neighbouring districts, with a request to inform the clues coming forth and to update the data in Criminal Intelligence System. It is further stated that the details have been given to print and electronic media. On 17.11.2010, the Inspector of Police, Pahadi Shareef addressed a letter to the Inspector, Special Operation Team, Cyberabad to furnish the call particulars of Cell Phone No. 7842332051, used by the missing person and it was informed that the missing person used the said phone upto 25.10.2010 and thereafter it was switched off. It is further stated that pursuant to the information from the detenu that her husband might have gone to Bangalore, a letter was addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, on 19.11.2010 seeking issuance of Inter-State Passport to the Investigating Officer to visit Bangalore and accordingly, the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, by order dated 20.11.2010 issued Inter-State Passport requesting all the Magistrates, Police Officers and other public servants to provide all possible help to the Investigating Officer. On 22.11.2010, the Investigating Officer along with his staff visited City Crime Records Bureau of Bangalore City and on searching the Criminal Intelligence Systems, no information as to matching unidentified dead body of a male could be found. It is also stated that on 21.11.2010, the Investigating Officer addressed a letter to the Inspector of Police, Special Operation Team, Cyberabad, to the effect that the missing man also used several cell phones from 15.9.2010 to 21.11.2010 and to furnish the call details of the phones during the said period. While so, the Investigating Officer along with his staff visited Ahmedpura Colony, Bodhan Road, Opposite to Masjid-e-Araft, Nizamabad, wherein mother of the detenu resides. On enquiry, she informed that her son and his wife reside at Hyderabad and that she did not see him after his missing and she is not aware of his whereabouts. The Investigating Officer examined brothers and relatives of the missing person at Nizamabad, who stated that they are not aware of the whereabouts of the missing person. It is stated that the police have made all efforts to trace out the missing man and the investigation is still going on. If that be so, it cannot be said that the police is not diligently investigating with regard to the whereabouts of the missing man or to trace him out. In view of the efforts made by the police, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Therefore, while disposing of the writ petition, we direct the police to continue further investigation and file a report, in accordance with law, after completion of the investigation, before the concerned Magistrate in the above crime. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah ________________________ Justice V.Suri Appa Rao January 25, 2011 MAS `