THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1146 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao) This writ petition has been instituted by one Gopugari Reddaiah seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to declare the detention of his father-Sri Gopugari Jayarami Reddy, by the Station House Officer, Penagalur Police Station, Kadapa District, on 25th January 2010 onwards without any authority of law as illegal and consequently, to set at liberty his father forthwith. The fourth respondent-the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penagalur Police Station, Kadapa District, has filed a detailed counter-affidavit in this writ petition enclosing thereto the relevant material. It is stated by him that on the intervening night of 27/28th January 2010, the Station House Officer, Penagalur Police Station, has apprehended the alleged detenu-Sri Gopugari Jayarami Reddy, Son of Sidda Reddy, resident of Penagalur Mandal and also caused his production before the Tahsildar/Mandal Executive Magistrate, Penagalur Mandal, on 28th January 2010 at about 1 pm and that the individual was also released on bail after executing a bond by him. As of now, therefore, the alleged detenu-Sri Gopugari Jayarami Reddy, Son of Sidda Reddy, is freely moving about and he is not under the detention of the Police. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the contents of the counter-affidavit are far from the truth. The truth of the matter, according to the learned counsel, is that the father of the writ petitioner-Sri Gopugari Jayarami Reddy has been detained illegally from 25th January 2010 and only, after the writ petitioner approached this Court and instituted the above writ petition, did the local Police show his arrest by registering a case in Crime No.4 of 2010 and they caused the production of his father before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Penagalur Mandal, and released him immediately. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner strenuously contended that the illegal detention of his father for three days has got to be dealt with strictly. When we have pointed out that under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner as well as his father are entitled to set the criminal law in motion, the learned counsel submits that subject to preserving liberty to the petitioner and his father to take action considered appropriate against the Station House Officer of the local Police Station, the writ petition may be disposed of. It is needless for us to observe that any person who is aggrieved of any illegal or highhanded action on the part of the Police is as much entitled to invoke Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and set the law in motion. One does not require any prior permission for doing so. Leaving this option to the writ petitioner or his father, no further orders are needed to be passed in this writ petition in view of the fact that the alleged detenu is freely moving about in the society as of now. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO 04th February, 2010 DR