IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 22160 of 2008 Between: T. Seethamma, W/o. Veeraiah, R/o. Madala Village, Muppalla Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Muppalla Police Station, Guntur District. 2 The Station House Officer, Central Crime Station, Guntur District. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Guntur, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondent No.2 herein to produce the detenue herein namely Mr. T. Durga Rao S/o. Veeraiah aged about 22 years occ: Labour R/o. Madala Village, Muppalla Mandal, Guntur District before the Hon'ble Court and record the statments of the detenue herein and st him at liberty and basing on his statement, this HOn'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 herein to register a criminal case under appropriate section of law and punish accordingly and award appropriate compensation to the victim of torture and illegal detention (dentenue herein) and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAGHUNATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.22160 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This petition is ﬁled by Smt. T.Seethamma seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing the second respondent to produce the alleged detenu, T.Durga Rao, R/o Madala village, Muppalla Mandal, Guntur district, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. The petitioner alleged that T.Durga Rao had gone to the market, where he was picked up by respondent No.2 on 28-09-2008 and since then, he is being tortured and is under illegal detention. When she approached the Rural Police Station of Sattanapally to know the whereabouts of the alleged detenu, she was told that he was arrested in connection with the offence of theft. 3. A counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by Circle Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Guntur, inter alia, stating that during the course of investigation into Crime No.113 of 2008 of Kothapet Crime Police Station, registered for the oﬀence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, the police have caught hold of a person, who revealed his name as Tammisetty Durga Rao and on further examination, he made a confession that he had committed the crime. It is also stated that the alleged detenu is A-1 in the above crime and he was produced before IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur on 06-10-2008 and thereafter remanded in judicial custody and the two other accused are still absconding. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is illegally detained by the police and as such, his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is infringed. 6. A perusal of the counter-aﬃdavit clearly shows that the alleged detenu was arrested in Crime No.113 of 2008 on 05-10-2008 and produced before IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, who remanded the alleged detenu to judicial custody. In fact, the respondents have ﬁled FIR and remand report in connection with the said crime, which show the alleged involvement of the detenu in the crime. These facts are not controverted by way of filing reply by the petitioner. 7. Having regard to the averments in the counter- aﬃdavit, which are not controverted, we cannot go into question whether Article 21 has been infringed or not, that too in a habeas corpus petition and the alleged detenu had been arrested in connection with crime and remanded in judicial custody. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that detenu has been detained without any lawful justiﬁcation and we are not inclined to continue the proceedings. 8. The writ petition is therefore closed. The petitioner or the alleged detenu is at liberty to pursue other remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 16-10-2008 bsc