Dismissed

Chetla Chandhra Kranth v. The Commissioner of Police Cyberabad

Telangana HC12 Oct 2012WP/31845/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a writ of Habeas Corpus for two individuals alleged to be illegally detained by the police. The Court found that one detenu was legally remanded to judicial custody while the other was not taken into custody. Consequently, there was no illegal detention. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. The writ petition directed to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus was dismissed.

Chetla Chandhra Kranth Vs The Commissioner of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 31845 of 2012

¶3

ORDER: (Per NVR, J)

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent police to produce detenu No.1Danthala Dasharatha, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner, and his friend detenu No.2-Akkapally Ramulu, who are said to have been allegedly detained by the respondent police, before the Court and set them at liberty.

¶5

Pursuant to the notice ordered by this Court, respondent No.2Inspector of Police, Bowenpally Police Station, filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and it is stated that the alleged detenu no.1-Danthala Dasharatha is accused No.1 in Crime No. 336 of 2012 on the file of Bowenpally Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 390 I.P.C. He was apprehended by the respondent police on 09.10.2012 and on his production before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, on 10.10.2012, he was remanded to judicial custody, and pursuant to the remand order made by the Magistrate, the alleged detenu no.1 is lodged in Central Prison, Chenchalguda. It is further stated that the other accused nos.2 and 3 in the above crime namely M.Ramesh and Badri surrendered before the very same Magistrate on 11.10.2012 and they were remanded to judicial custody, and pursuant to the remand order, they are now lodged in Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad.

¶6

But, with regard to the alleged detenu no.2-Akkapally Ramulu, it is stated that he is not an accused in the above crime and that the respondents have not taken him into custody.

¶7

Since the alleged detenu no.1 is said to be accused No.1 along with two others in Crime No.336 of 2012 on the file of Bowenpally Police Station, Hyderabad, and was remanded to judicial custody and is now lodged in Central Prison, Chenchalguda, it cannot be said that the police have illegally detained detenu No.1.

¶8

So far as detenu No.2 is concerned, as it is stated that he is not involved in any crime and he was not taken into custody, it cannot be said that he is in illegal custody of the police.

¶9

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶10

_____________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶11

__________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶12

12^th October, 2012 VJL

Chetla Chandhra Kranth v. The Commissioner of Police Cyberabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetla Chandhra Kranth v. The Commissioner of Police Cyberabad

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

Bodasu Kothaiah , Kothanna, Vs The State of A.P.

Korra balaram, Vs The State of A.P.

Kammari Prabhu,(A-6) Vs State of A.P.

Marapareddigari Bhimalinga Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bitra Venkateswararao, Vs State of a.P., through Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri

Paramasani Sivaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh