Disposed

I.U.B.S.Sarma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC25 Jan 2012WP/206/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 for habeas corpus, the petitioner sought production of his son allegedly detained by respondents 5 and 6. The alleged detenu appeared before the Court, was recognized by the petitioner, and stated he was free and working. The Court held that since the person was produced and identified, nothing survived for adjudication, and the petition was closed. Disposition

What the court decided

AI extract

I.U.B.S.Sarma Vs Government of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶2

W.P. No. 206 of 2012

¶3

Oral order: (Per Sri. N.V. Ramana, J.)

¶4

The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to trace his son Viswanath and produce him before the Court and set him at liberty.

¶5

The petitioner states that his son is a Software Engineer in a private company. That he is married and blessed with a daughter. Apart from his employment in a private company, he was also doing business in the name and style of M/s. VSP Technologies Pvt. Ltd. In the course of his business, he came into contact with respondent No.5, who is the daughter of respondent No.6. Thereafter, for persons reasons, he closed his business. That respondent Nos. 5 and 6 detained his son illegally and that his son informed him that there is threat to his life. That his son went missing from 17.04.2011 and as he could not trace him, he lodged a complaint to the police on 28.04.2011, and based on his complaint, respondent No.4, registered a case of “man missing” in Crime

¶6

No. 319 of 2011 and issued look out notice. That even though a case of “man missing” is registered, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 could not trace the whereabouts of his son. He states that on enquiries, he came to know that his son is illegally detained by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in spite of bringing the same to their notice, failed to take any action, for getting his son released from the illegal

¶7

detention of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, he is compelled to approach this Court.

¶8

On 05.01.2012, this Court ordered notice to the respondents. Pursuant thereto, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, respondent No.4, namely Inspector of Police, Punjagutta, filed counter stating that based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner a case of “man missing” in Crime No. 319 of 2011 was registered on 28.04.2011. Thereafter, he took up investigation, and during the course of investigation, he visited the house of respondent No.6, who when examined stated that he has nothing to do with the alleged detenu and that his daughter, namely respondent No.5 is a Software Engineer at IBM, Bangalore. That respondent Nos. 5 and 6 obtained anticipatory bail from the Court of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on 28.06.2011. While the investigation was in progress, the alleged detenu addressed letter dated 20.06.2011 stating that he is working as Software Engineer and that his marriage was performed with one A.V. Ramani on 16.04.2006, that he filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage, that he was subjected to cruelty by his wife, her father and her brothers and that they took custody of his valuables, such as certificates, money, phones, clothes, passport etc. That they handed over the said letter to the petitioner and denied that he connived with respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

¶9

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 also filed counter stating that they have nothing to do with the alleged detenu and much less he is under their influence.

¶10

On 19.01.2012, when the writ petition was taken up, the alleged detenu appeared before the Court, represented by a counsel. He submitted that he is not under the influence of anybody, much less respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and that he is moving freely, that he is

¶11

working in a private company and residing at Bangalore.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and the learned counsel for the alleged detenu.

¶13

The alleged detenu, who appeared before the Court, was recognized by the petitioner. The alleged detenu stated that he is not under the influence of anybody, much less respondent Nos. 5 and 6, that he is working in a private company and residing at Bangalore. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have also in their counter stated that their son had addressed letter to him that he is working in a private company and residing at Bangalore. Though the petitioner filed reply-affidavit denying the stand taken by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the matter, because the scope of Writ of Habeas Corpus is limited, to the production of the detenu before the Court. Since the alleged detenu, for the production of whom, the present writ petition is filed, has himself appeared before the Court, who has also been identified by the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition.

¶14

Hence, no further orders need be passed in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly closed.

¶15

________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶16

_____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J.

¶17

Dated: 25^th January, 2012

¶18

KSR

I.U.B.S.Sarma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

I.U.B.S.Sarma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Evuru Yedukondalu , Kondala Rao

Yogesh Patel, Vs The Commissioner

Yesgi Narsimulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Alla Venkata Sanath Babji Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Peruboyina Ramanna , Ramayya, Vs The State of A.P.

Ahmedpur Swamy, Vs The State of A.P.