IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2067 of 2009 Between: Bandaru Vijayalakshmi W/o. Vasu, Residing at Irukupalem Village, Muppala Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, Kadapa. 2 The Circle Inspector, City Crime Station, Kadapa. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to produce the detenus Viz., 1)Bandaru Vasu S/o Venkaterswarlu, aged about 21 years 2) Bandaru Srinivasa Rao S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 26 years 3) Bandaru Edukondalu S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 23 years, who were detenued by the 2nd respondents along with his police constables with the help of 3rd respondent from my house at about 12-00 a.m. in the mid night of 29-1- 2009, before this Hon'ble Court and to handover them to me and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.V.S.MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, who is the wife of Bandaru Vasu, alleged detenu No.1 filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce Bandaru Vasu, Bandaru Srinivasa Rao and Bandaru Yedukondalu, who are alleged to have been illegally detained by the second respondent police and his police constables on 29.01.2009 at about 12.00 a.m and to produce them before this Court. In response to the notice, the second respondent - Circle Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Kadapa filed a counter- affidavit denying the illegal detention of the alleged detenus. In the said counter-affidavit, it is stated that on 04.02.2009 one Mr.R.Sainath Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Kadapa lodged a complaint with Kadapa Taluk Police Station stating that while himself and his staff were moving in Kadapa Town outskirts to trace out the property offenders and the suspects, they reached Built-up Junction, Kadapa City at 2.30 a.m. on the intervening night of 3/4.2.2009 and found three persons moving in suspicious circumstances. On seeing the police the said three persons tried to run away and the police surrounded and caught hold of them. On examination by the Sub Inspector of Police, the said three persons revealed their names as Bandaru Vasu, Bandaru Srinivasa Rao and Bandaru Yedukondalu, who are alleged detenus 1 to 3 herein and on searching them the Sub Inspector of Police found bunch of keys, blades, screw driver, candle and a match box in their possession. Therefore, the Sub Inspector of Police arrested them, seized the above said items and lodged a report, based on which a case in Crime No.19 of 2009 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C and investigated into. Later, the alleged detenus were produced before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadapa, who vide M.C.No.9/2009, dated 04.02.2009 bounded over them to maintain good behaviour for a period of six months and released them on furnishing personal security for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and accordingly they were released on 04.02.2009. The above averments made in the counter-affidavit discloses that the alleged detenus were suspects in Crime No.19 of 2009 registered for the offence punishable under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C and they were produced before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadapa, who bounded over them to maintain good behaviour for a period of six months and released them on furnishing personal security for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, which shows that the alleged detenus were not illegally detained by the second respondent police, as alleged by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ___________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 13.02.2009 va