Dismissed

Mr Medisetti Vijay Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC23 Oct 2018WP/38022/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking habeas corpus to produce and release the respondent No. 7, who was already in judicial custody following arrest, by holding the petition infructuous but granting liberty to approach for remedies regarding alleged ill-treatment.

What did the court decide?

Infructuous but with liberty to approach for remedies regarding ill-treatment during police custody.

Mr Medisetti Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY &

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.38022 of 2018

¶4

DATE: 23-10-2018

¶5

Between: Medisetti Vijay Kumar AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh and 6 others

¶6

..... PETITIONER

¶7

.....RESPONDENTS

¶8

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : Sri V.SAI KUMAR
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS : Asst.Govt.Pleader, attached to
ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)

¶9

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

CVNR,J & TA,J WP.38022 of 2018

¶11

¶12

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶13

WRI T PETI TI ON No.38022 of 2018

¶14

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶15

This writ petition is filed for issue of habeas corpus directing respondents Nos.2 to 6 to produce respondent No.7 (hereinafter referred to as “the alleged detenu”) before the Court and set her at liberty.

¶16

At the hearing, the learned Asst.Govt.Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General (AP), on instructions, submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.7 are accused in Cr.No.300 of 2018, on the file of respondent No.5 police station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w.Sec.34 IPC, that while the petitioner has been absconding, respondent No.7 was arrested on 16.10.2018 and produced before the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada on the same day, and that later he was remanded to judicial custody by the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶17

Mr.V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though respondent No.7 has informed the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada about the ill-treatment meted out to her by the police during the custody, he has failed to note down and take action against the police. He requested for giving liberty to the petitioner and respondent No.7 to avail appropriate legal remedies for the ill-treatment of respondent No.7.

¶18

In the light of the fact that respondent No.7 is in judicial custody after being arrested, the Writ Petition is disposed of as infructuous, however, with liberty to the petitioner and respondent No.7, in terms of the prayer made.

¶19

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J

¶20

_____________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD,J

¶21

Date: 23.10.2018 Dsr

Mr Medisetti Vijay Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Medisetti Vijay Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Bollam Chandraiah Vs State of Ap., Rep by Pp

G.Venkataramudu, Vs The Lok Adalath Held at Hindupur

Sri C Ramulu Vs C Suguna

Bandi Chennaiah and Another Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Pp

Dasamanthula Hemasundar, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Katike Imam Saheb, Vs The Station House Officer