IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 11485 of 2009 Between: The Cousin Brother of Pannalal Chowdary, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Medak Town Police Station, Medak District. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Medak District at Medak. .....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 05-06-2009 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 Petitioner's cousin brother Viz., Pannalal Chowdary, before this Hon'ble Court, who was illegally detained by the S.I. of Police viz., Nageswara Rao, alongwith two handcuffed thieves at 16.30 hours on 30-05-2009 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 : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11485 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is initiated at the instance of the petitioner’s telegram, dated 05.06.2009, seeking a direction to respondents to produce the cousin brother of the petitioner viz., Sri Pannalal Chowdary, who was illegally detained along with two others by the Sub Inspector of Police and two other Constables of Medak Town Police Station, Medak, on 30.05.2009, before this Court and set him at liberty. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Papannapet Police Station, Medak District, who was holding the additional charge of the post of Station House Officer, Medak Town Police Station, stating inter alia that the first respondent-police never in any manner illegally detained the alleged detenu. However, he visited the shop of the alleged detenu on 30.5.2009 to ascertain whether he has purchased the stolen property from the accused in Crime No.132 of 2007 and in the said enquiry, the alleged detenu categorically denied to have purchased any stolen property from the accused. However, since there was a confessional statement made by the accused that the stolen property was sold to the alleged detenu, the alleged detenu was asked to come to the Police Station for further enquiry. In the further enquiry also, the alleged detenu denied of his involvement in the above said crime and no property could be recovered from his possession. Therefore, the alleged detenu was let off on the same day i.e., on 30.5.2009 itself. It is stated that except visiting the shop of the alleged detenu on 30.5.2009 and taking him to the Police Station for further enquiry, the alleged detenu was never detained illegally, nor his presence is required, inasmuch as his involvement in the above said crime was not prima-facie established. Further, the allegation that third degree methods were used against the alleged detenu was also denied. It is further stated that the alleged detenu is not in the illegal custody of the first respondent and he is moving freely by attending to his day-to-day work. In order to establish the same, the alleged detenu was produced before the Tahsildar, Medchal Mandal, who inturn recorded the statement of the alleged detenu on 18.6.2009, which is made part of the record, wherein he stated that he was never illegally detained by the first respondent police. 4. From the above facts, since the alleged detenu was scot-free and now moving freely, the allegations made against the first respondent- police are totally baseless. Therefore, the question of issuing Writ of Habeas Corpus does not arise. 5. For the foregoing, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 26-06-2009 Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11485 of 2009 26-06-2009 (Msr)