THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No.26501 of 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner has filed this writ of Habeas Corpus seeking to give a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 herein to produce his grand son viz., S.Nithin Kumar, S/o.S.Anil Rao, who is alleged to have been detained illegally by the respondents 2 and 3 and set him at liberty forthwith. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the alleged detenu is aged 17 years and is studying intermediate second year in Royal Junior College, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad and on 12-09-2011 at about 6.30 a.m. while she was talking to her daughter Saritha, two persons in civil dress came to their house and called her grandson and forcibly took away her grandson to Rajendernagar police station and on their enquiry, she came to know that her grand son was detained with regards to a theft case. 3. It is further stated that her daughters waited at the police station till late in the night upto 1 a.m. on 12-09-2011 and as there was no response from the police they returned back to the house and informed her about the same. On 13-09-2011 at about 11 a.m. she along with her daughter Saritha went to the police station again and found her grandson in the lockup and she had requested the Sub-Inspector to allow her to serve the food to her grand son, but he did not allow her to do so and they had waited till 2.30 p.m. and atlast they allowed her to serve the food to her grandson and at that time she had found injuries on his face, hands and legs and her grand son started crying. Her grand son informed her that in the intervening night of 12/13-09-2011, the police mercilessly beat all over his body with sticks and belts questioning him about a theft case, for which he got no connection. Thus, it is alleged that the police illegally detained the alleged detenu though he was not involved in any theft case. 4. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter stating that on a complaint given by one D. Omprakash, S/o.Balvanth Pratap, alleging that on 20-08-2011 at about 1130 hours the complainant’s wife locked the house and went to the Hospital and when she returned home at 1415 hours she found that some unknown offenders entered into the house by opening the main door of the house and had broken the lock of their almairah and committed theft of gold, silver ornaments, two cell phones and a net cash of Rs.14,000/-. During the course of investigation, it came to light that the cell phone pertaining to the above said crime was operated by the alleged detenu. On such information, the Investigating Officer secured relevant call particulars and town location of the stolen cell phone and located the address of the alleged detenu. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer approached the house of the alleged detenu and found the alleged detenu in the house and informed the above matter to the petitioner, sister, father and grand father of the alleged detenu and asked the said persons to cause presence of the alleged detenu before the Investigating Officer for conducting enquiry. Accordingly, the alleged detenu along with his grand father appeared before the Investigating Officer on 13-09- 2011 and the alleged detenu was questioned by the Investigating Officer with regards to the use of cell phone pertaining to the said crime. In that regard, the alleged detenu stated that he found the said cell phone nearby to his house and he used it for sometime and later abandoned it and the said cell phone was not in his possession. After recording his statement in the presence of his grand father, the alleged detenu left along with his grand father with a direction to attend the police station as and when required for further investigation. 5. On 16-09-2011, the Investigating Officer deputed PC No.2904 to go to the house of the alleged detenu and ask him to appear before the Investigating Officer along with his family members. However, till date, the alleged detenu did not appear before the Investigating Officer. The said police constable was once again deputed to the house of the alleged detenu on 19-09-2011, but the alleged detenu was not available at his residence and he did not appear before the Investigating Officer. The police are making efforts to get clues from the alleged detenue for investigating into the above said crime. The other allegations made by the petitioner are denied. The alleged detenu is not attending the police station though he is very much available with his family members. As such, there is no illegal detention, as alleged by the petitioner on the alleged date or any other subsequent dates. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no notices were served on the alleged detenu on 13-09-2011 and 16-09-2011 respectively and in fact the police have illegally detained the alleged detenu from 12-09-2011 to 21-09-2011. It is further stated that the general diary was manipulated and an entry was subsequently added as if the detenu was served notices. Therefore, no notices were served on the alleged detenu and that the alleged detenu was in illegal custody of the police. 7. The 2nd respondent filed a copy of entries in the general diary and the notices issued under Section 41(1) (a) of Cr.P.C. on 13-09-2011 and 16-09-2011 respectively, which are said to have been received by the alleged detenu. 8. Whether the signatures on the said notices belong to that of the alleged detenu or not, it is not possible for this Court to verify the same. If the alleged detenu is illegally detained from 12-09-2011 to 21-09-2011, the petitioner could have filed a complaint against the Station House Officer before the higher authorities or a private complaint before the Magistrate concerned. The disputed facts cannot be gone into in a Writ of Habeas corpus. Admittedly, at present, the alleged detenu is not in the custody of the police. If there is any illegal detention, the petitioner could have taken appropriate steps to establish the said illegal detention. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date : 18-10-2011 Prv