IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD 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 : 11717 of 2009 Between: Rani W/o. OJausha A/2/4 DAE Colony,ECIL Near Kushaiguda R.R District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police Cyberabad,R.R District 2 The Station House Officer P.S Kushaiguda Police,Cyberabad R.R District 3 The Station House Officer P.S Jeedimetla Police,Cyberabad R.R 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 Heabeas Corpus declaring the action of the respondent No 2 in picking up the detenue herein ie Jausha S/o S.C Dorai Aged 25 years Occ.Pvt Employee,R/o. Plot No.031 Manu Apartments,A.S Rao Nagar Kushaiguda,Cyberabad who have illegally abducted and detained the detenur herein putting him and his family in fear of killing the detenue in encounter and terrorizing the family of the detenue is against the right of life and personal liberty and gross violation of Art of the Constitution of India and violation of Judgment as enshrined in D.K Basu Vs State of West Bengal and subjecting him to 3rd degree torture forcibly making the detenue to admit offences unrelated to him illegaly and record the statement of the detenue herein and basing on the statement this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MEKALASRINIVAS YADAV Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HO’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.11717 of 2009 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri Mekala Srinivasa Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband, by name Jausha, son of S.C.Dorai, aged 25 years, was being taken away by respondents 2 and 3 – Station House Officers, Kushaiguda and Jeedimetla Police Stations, Cyberabad of Ranga Reddy district, respectively. It is her further grievance that the whereabouts of her husband are not known for the reason that he is being shifted from one police station to another police station. 3. It is the specific contention of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that though, initially the alleged detenu was whisked away by the police, at present, he is kept in prison at Bhongir. But, unfortunately, there is no material before this Court in order to arrive at any conclusion. 4. Counter-affidavits have been filed by respondents 2 and 3 against whom specific averments have been made by the petitioner, wherein and whereby they denied the averment that they have taken away forcibly the husband of the petitioner. 5. Respondent No.3 categorically denied the averment in his counter that no case is pending against the husband of the petitioner in Jeedimetla Police Station. Similarly, it was further stated by respondent No.2 that several cases are pending against the alleged detenu. Initially, he was arrested in C.C.No.437 of 2006 and was remanded to judicial custody by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgii, Cyberabad. Subsequently, he was released on bail. After release, his whereabouts are not known. It was further stated that in connection with the other cases pending against the alleged detenu before various courts, he has not been available for apprehension, as a result, warrants have been issued by the respective courts having jurisdiction. In most of the cases that are pending against him are said to be for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 381 I.P.C. It is the further statement that the presence of the alleged detenu is required in various other cases. Therefore, they are very much serious about his apprehension and so far, they could not nab him by executing the warrants issued by the competent courts. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner complains before this Court that the petitioner has been receiving cell phone calls from her husband. But, she does not know where her husband is. It is incomprehensible as to how the alleged detenu is in possession of a cell phone, and if he is really in the custody of the police, it is equally incomprehensible as to why the alleged detenu, who is in the custody of the police, while in contact with the petitioner over a cell phone, did not disclose his whereabouts. 7. However, the learned Counsel is very specific that it is only from the information passed on by the detenu that he has been initially kept in Kushaiguda Police Station and then, in Jeedimetla Police Station, headed by respondents 2 and 3, respectively, and presently he is under confinement at Bhongir prison. 8. Upon the said specific averment made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, in order to verify the veracity of the statements of both sides, for the reason that both the statements amount to oath against oath, we directed the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad to verify from the Magistrate concerned at Bhongir as to whether the alleged detenu was imprisoned anywhere within that limits and also to verify about the custody of the alleged detenu at Kushaiguda Police Station. It was informed by the Magistrate at Bhongir that upon a sudden verification both at the rural and urban police stations, he could not trace out the alleged detenu. It also appears that even the other inmates of the prison did not say anything about the whereabouts of the detenu. 9. Similarly, the Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad personally visited and verified about the presence of the alleged detenu in Kushaiguda Police Station, but he also could not find the detenu. 10. From the above, it is obvious that the averments made by the petitioner are not correct. The probabilities of the detenu being detained by any other police station, including the police station at Pondicherry cannot be ruled out, since it has been stated in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 that several cases are pending against the detenu not only in this State but also in Pondicherry. 11. Therefore, in view of the above, prima facie, we are convinced that the Police are not responsible for the missing of the alleged detenu. As already pointed out, the alleged detenu has been in touch with the petitioner regularly over a cell phone. Except this material, there is no other material for this Court to assist the petitioner to the legally permissible extend in protecting the rights of the alleged detenu. Basing simply upon the vague averments, this Court cannot proceed by issuing directions to the official respondents. 12. It is the further complaint of the petitioner that the Police have been harassing her physically and mentally. In such a case, it is always open for her to make a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate against the erring officials. If there is no appropriate action from the Magistrate, appropriate steps as permissible under law can be taken by the petitioner. When this statutory liberty is available to the petitioner, this Court instead of taking up by itself and going into the various facts, close the writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner to proceed against the respondents or any other erring officials in accordance with law, as indicated above. 13. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 23rd June, 2009. Ak ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}