Dismissed

Zaheda Unnisa Begum v. Government of A.P. rep. by its Director General of Police

Telangana HC20 Jul 2012WP/20639/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking production of husband and son allegedly illegally detained after being injured in an attack, the Court dismissed the petition after finding the detenus were lawfully in judicial custody charged with murder and attempted murder via judicial remand.

What did the court decide?

No order passed; writ petition dismissed as the detenus are lawfully in judicial custody.

Zaheda Unnisa Begum Vs Government of A.P. rep. by its… — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE

¶6

N.V.RAMANA

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD

¶9

W.P.No.20639 of 2012

¶10

Between:

¶11

Zaheda Unnisa Begum, W/o Mohd Moin Pasha …Petitioner

¶12

And

¶13

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Director General of Police, Saifabad, Hyderabad and 2others.

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.20639 of 2012

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

(Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana)

¶18

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce petitioner’s husband namely Mohd. Moin Pasha and son namely Mohd. Moiz Pasha, who have been illegally detained by the 3^rd respondent herein, before this Court and to set them at liberty.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that on 03.07.2012 while her husband and son were going on a motorcycle to the college of her son, some persons stopped them near Moinabad bus-stand and attacked them with deadly weapons, as a result of which, they sustained grievous injuries, and also killed a person due to the dispute with regard to the graveyard attached to the Jame Masjid, Moinabad. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent has illegally detained the alleged detenus without providing any medical aid to them.

¶20

Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the 3^rd respondentInspector of Police, Moinabad Police Station, filed a detailed counter-affidavit, denying the allegations made by the petitioner, and it is stated that the alleged detenus are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.161 of 2012 on the file of Moinabad Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and that they were arrested on 06.07.2012 and produced before the VIII-Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, who remanded them to judicial custody. It is further stated that pursuant to the remand order, the

¶21

alleged detenus are now lodged at Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶23

In view of the averments made in the counter-affidavit of the 3^rd respondent, it is apparent that the alleged detenus are accused in the aforesaid crime and they have been arrested and sent to judicial custody and that they are now lodged at Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District. Therefore, the question of respondents detaining the alleged detenus illegally does not arise. Consequently, this Court is of the view that no orders need be passed in the present writ petition.

¶24

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if the alleged detenus require immediate medical treatment, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Criminal Court by filing a petition for providing medical aid to them. No order as to costs.

¶25

________________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶26

__________________________ JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD

¶27

20.07.2012 Gsn

Zaheda Unnisa Begum v. Government of A.P. rep. by its Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zaheda Unnisa Begum v. Government of A.P. rep. by its Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pappu Prema Sagar Vs The Station House Officer

Potla Krishnaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Vanthala Rajanna, Vs The State of A.P.

Gopal Das Soni Vs The Government of Andhra pradesh

Mohammed Sirajuddin Vs The Superintendent of Police

Chandragiri Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of A.P.