Petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus writ regarding alleged illegal detention of her son and sought impleadment of Government Railway Police. Court found the detention expired upon production before the magistrate, dismissing the petition as infructuous.
IA No.1 of 2018 allowed and WP No.775 of 2018 disposed of as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
and
The Hon’ble Sri Justice Gudiseva Shyam Prasad IA.No.1 of 2018 in/& WP.No.775 of 2018 Date: 19.01.2018
IA.No.1 of 2018
Between : Vasantha Kannan and The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary (Home) SP Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and 5 others WP.No.775 of 2018 Between : Vasantha Kannan and The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary (Home) SP Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and 4 others
… Petitioner
…Respondents … Petitioner
…Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.O.Udaya Kumar Counsel for the respondents: Mr.P.Bhaskar, SC for Railways
The Court made the following:
CVNR, J & GSP, J 2 IA.No.1/18 in/& WP.No.775 of 2018 Dt: 19.01.2018
Common Order: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)
Writ Petition No.775 of 2018 is filed for issue of a Habeas Corpus directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to produce K.Senthil Kumar, S/o.Kannan, before this Court and to set him free.
The petitioner, who is the mother of the alleged detenu , averred that on 29-12-2017, her son went to attend the Railway Court in Nellore in connection with a Criminal Case registered against him, but did not return home. She further alleged that she was informed by respondent No.4 through phone that her son was arrested by them; that on her rushing to the Tirupathi Railway Police Station at about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m., she saw her son being kept in the custody in respondent No.4- Police Station and that on 03-01-2018, when the petitioner again went to respondent No.4- Police Station and enquired about her son, the Police have abused her in filthy language and did not give any information about the whereabouts of her son. With these allegations, she filed the present Writ Petition.
A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Divisional Security Commissioner/RPF/Guntakal Division wherein he
has denied the allegation that respondent No.4 is the Station
CVNR, J & GSP, J IA.No.1/18 in/& WP.No.775 of 2018 Dt: 19.01.2018
3
House Officer. He has averred that respondent No.4 is a part of the Railway Protection Force while the Government Railway Police Station is a different entity functioning from the first floor of platform No.1 of Tirupathi Railway Station and that therefore, respondent No.4 has nothing to do with the Government Railway Police. It is further averred that as per the reliable information, the petitioner’s son was arrested by the Government Railway Police on 06-01-2008 at about 7.00 hours as he was found in possession of six bundles of Ganja totally weighing about 11.600 grams worth Rs.58,000/- and gold jewellery weighing about 88 grams worth Rs.2,20,000/- and accordingly, Crime No.03/18 was registered against him by the Inspector of Government Railway Police, Renigunta, for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
IA.No.1 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner for impleading the Government Railway Police, Tirupathi, on realising from the averments of the counter-affidavit that respondent No.4 was not the Officer, who, allegedly, detained the petitioner’s son.
CVNR, J & GSP, J 4 IA.No.1/18 in/& WP.No.775 of 2018 Dt: 19.01.2018
At the hearing, Mr.O.Udaya Kumar, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, submitted that though the petitioner’s son was illegally detained on 29-12-2017, he was produced before the Railway Magistrate on 07-01-2018 and that the latter has remanded him to the judicial custody.
Inasmuch as the petitioner’s son has been produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the Criminal Case registered against him, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication. However, if the petitioner is interested in challenging the alleged illegal detention of her son, she shall be free to avail appropriate legal remedies available to her in law.
Subject to this liberty given to the petitioner, IA.No.1 of 2018 is allowed and Writ Petition No.775 of 2018 is disposed
of as infructuous .
______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
_______________________ (Gudiseva Shyam Prasad, J)
Dt: 19th January, 2018 lur
CVNR, J & GSP, J IA.No.1/18 in/& WP.No.775 of 2018 Dt: 19.01.2018
5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus survives adjudication after the alleged detenue is produced before the jurisdictional magistrate and remanded to judicial custody.
Whether the petitioner can challenge the alleged illegal detention via appropriate legal remedies.
Whether the Railway Protection Force is the proper respondent for detention by Government Railway Police.
Vasantha Kannan
The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary (Home)
RPF/Guntakal Division
Government Railway Police, Tirupathi
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Gudiseva Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
