IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH 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 : 21049 of 2008 Between: Saraswathi, W/o. S. Mahankali, R/o. 42-261/B, Sarmakara Nagar, Moulali, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Malkajgiri Police Station, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, at Hyderabad. .....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 For the reasons stated in the "Telegram" dated 22-09-2008 sent by the Petitioner herein, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an Order, direction, or a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents herein to produce the son of the Petitioner, herein namely G. Srinivas, who was taken away by the police of Malkajgiri Police and apprehending danger to his life and set him at liberty forthwith and to pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:TELEGRAM 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.21049 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is taken up on the basis of a telegram dated 22-09-2008 sent by one Saraswathi to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court, alleging that her son G.Srinivas was illegally detained by Malkajgiri police and kept him in their custody and she apprehends danger to his life and seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce G.Srinivas and set him at liberty forthwith. 2. On 25-09-2008, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General took notice and sought time to file counter. 3. The Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri Police Station, Hyderabad, has ﬁled an aﬃdavit, inter alia, stating that alleged detenue was not at all detained by the police and as on today, he is moving freely and attending day-to-day work. It is also stated that since the alleged detenu happened to be a close relative of the petitioner and her husband, he was summoned to the police station on 22-09-2008 to ascertain the whereabouts of the petitioner and her husband, who are accused in Crime No.264 of 2008 and that the alleged detenu is not the son of the petitioner and he had participated in the enquiry and after the enquiry, he was let off on the same day. 5. Apart from the above, the Tahsildar-cum-Mandal Executive Magistrate, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, within whose jurisdiction the alleged detenu resides, had recorded the statement of alleged detenu on 03-10-2008. The alleged detenu had categorically stated before the said Magistrate that he was not illegally detained by the ﬁrst respondent police and he was thoroughly examined by the police on 22-09-2008 to ascertain the whereabouts of the accused in Crime No.264 of 2008. A copy of the statement of the alleged detenu recorded by the said Magistrate is placed on record. 6. A reading of the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent coupled with the statement of the alleged detenu, recorded by the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Keesara Mandal, goes to show that there was no illegal detention of G.Srinivas. The Inspector of Police has sworn to the aﬃdavit and stated on oath, as narrated above. It is categorically stated that the alleged detenu was called to the Police Station to know the whereabouts of the accused in the said crime and after enquiry, he was let oﬀ on the same day. The petitioner has not ﬁled any reply controverting the above averments. As such, there are not compelling circumstances to disbelieve the version of the ﬁrst respondent, which is supported by the statement recorded by the said Mandal Executive Magistrate. In the foregoing circumstances, it cannot be said that there is illegal detention of the alleged detenu and as such, there is no necessity to continue the proceedings. 7. The writ petition is therefore closed. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 16-10-2008 bsc