HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. NO. 25546 OF 2011 Wednesday, the Twenty First day of September, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Villa Srinivasa Rao Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Prdesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and others Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioner, father of the alleged detenu, filed this writ of habeas corpus, seeking production of his son – the alleged detenu by name Villa K.S. Vinay Kumar, aged about 20 years, resident of Weavers Colony, Rajahmundry, East Godvari District. It is stated that the alleged detenu had completed SSC in the year 2009 and went to Visakhapatnam on 3.7.2011 stating that he would join Polytechnic course in Management quota seat at Visakhapatnam and thereafter he did not return back home. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that his son had taken amounts deposited in an account of six persons, who gave a xerox copy of bond paper singed by his son in that context. It is stated that some of the account holders started harassing the petitioner, though he got nothing to do with the money transactions. It is stated that the fourth respondent - Station House Officer, Rajahmundry, also asked the petitioner to come to the Police Station and he was made to sit in the Police Station from morning to evening on 20th, 21st and 22nd August, 2011. Further he could not trace out his missing son so far. It is also stated that he had given complaint to the second respondent on 15.8.2011, but the police failed to register a case. A counter is filed by the third respondent admitting the representation made by the petitioner on 10.9.2011 stating that tem persons were threatening him with dire consequences saying that his son owed some money to them and also threatened to file complaint against him under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and hence he requested to provide police protection. On enquiry, the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry, came to know that a case was registered in Cr. No. 216 of 2011 in that regard, for offences punishable under Sec.420 read with Sec. 34 IPC, wherein the son of the petitioner was arrayed as A1, the petitioner and his wife were arrayed as A2 and A3 and A-1’s maternal uncle was arrayed as A4. It is stated that the investigation of that case is pending in that crime. No illegal detention by the police is claimed specifically. When criminal case was registered against the petitioner’s son, the police must be searching for him. In view of these revelations and as a crime was already registered on the complaint given by Bandaru Venkatalakshmi and others on 16.8.2011, wherein the petitioner’s son is said to be absconding and it cannot be said that he was illegally detained by the police without registering any crime, consequently, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to add that as and when the alleged detenu is traced, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah ______________________________ Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy September 21, 2011 MAS