Dismissed

Maligi Reddy Kavitha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Feb 2021WP/3295/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an order, the High Court of Telangana, with Justice Shameem Akther, disposed of two National Highways Writ Petitions seeking habeas corpus for relatives allegedly illegally detained. The Court held that since the relatives were lawfully remanded to judicial custody on 11.02.2021 under a registered Crime No. 29 of 2021, there was no case of illegal detention, and the petitions were dismissed wit

What did the court decide?

Both Writ Petitions are disposed of; no relief granted.

Maligi Reddy Kavitha Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIG H couR r F3,11[F,:,'flti" 3,!ffi^{o* oo,o}

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH I * t rwo rti b ii'olr,',5 ^i,^{Bi[?.-ii KrJ}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTIC

¶5

,r. ro , ",-=^;;:-rH #;:fi :T[: ""

¶6

WRITPETITI NN 5AND3 080 F20 1

¶7

Between:

¶8

3sJ:tI,".X',x, []Hliv#lftof uffn"'lfilf :#:iR] rfffij oabout 30 years,

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

'1 . The State of Telanoana Rep. by its principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Buildin{s. Hyderabad

¶12

The Superintendent of police, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda.

¶13

The Deputy Superintendent of police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Nakirekal p.S. Nalgonda District.

¶15

The Station House Officer, Narketpalli p.S. Nalgonda District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court rly6e pieaieo to issue a writ, order or direction more one in the nature of wRlr oF HABEAS coRPUS directing the Respondents 2 to 5 herein to produce the petitioners relatives namely (1)Anugu Shankar Reddy S/o. Raji Reddy aged 30 years, occ. Business, Narkatpally lr/andal, Venkatapuram Village, Nalgonda district 12; veota shiva Reddy S/o. Linga Reddy aged 20 year, Bendla padu Viilage, Narkatpaily Mandat, Nalgonda Distrrct before this Hon'ble High Court and set them at liberty.

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO: 3308 OF 2021

¶19

Between:

¶20

Zilla Nagi Reddy- S/o. Zilla Sankar Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. H.No. 14-24, Narketpalli Village and lrrlandal Tendal Pahad, Nalgonda District

¶21

...PETITIONER

¶22

AND

¶23

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶24

The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda.

¶25

The Deputy Superintentendent of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶26

The Station House Officer, Nakirekal P.S. Nalgonda District.

¶27

The Station House Officer, Narketpalli P.S. Nalgonda District

¶28

...RESPONDENTS

¶29

¶30

Petition^{under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} ;j=;; circumstances ; w;i,.^{stated in order or tt.r"'rtrlo'lriiiir"Jtherewith,' directionmore one in tl:} """Xr,n[T'ff,lfl^{L"ro'iX?iJot3} coRpus^{directing,r," ".Joni"ni.z b s hereinto. producethe petitioners relatives} namery^{(1) chappidi ,,""5Jori)l iiihirn' Reddv aoed 42 vear' Nomula village'} t)i^{cr,"ppioi r-avanGw/o, Janareddyaged 37} Nakrekar vears,^{Nomuta rVlandal, uir} '. r^{rg", Nlki} ursono: " 1[;^{"kr 'rriunour,} i .i^{Nalg_onda district (e) Yanala Padma'} w/o. Krishna^{neoov agJi^';i;;; ildal -PahadNear PallaPahadvillase'} Narkatpally^{tr,4andal,r'rurgnlol-oLtr.i"i't+l Yanala Janareddy S/o KrishnaReddy} aoed 35^{years, Bendal ;;;,;N";; ijutt' punuo village'Narkatpallytr/andal'} i,"rb.^{ii"rlir"i, o"r"i"tlris Hon'nle High courtand set them at libertv'}

¶31

Counsel^{for the Petitioner (in bothWPs'): SRIABDUL WAHID BASHA}

¶32

Counsel for^{the Respondents(in both WPs'):}

¶33

ASSTSTANT GOVERNMENT^{PLEADERFOR THE ADVOCATE GENERAL}

¶34

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI JUS' A'RAJASHEKER REDDY rHE H.N,BL. or. ,,^iiE STICE SHAMEEM AKTHER W IT PE TION No .3 29 A D3 3 8 of o2 1

¶36

coMMOry oRpER : (Per Hon,ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther) Writ^petition No.3295 of 2027, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following prai/er:

¶37

"to issue a Writ, order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS directing the Respondents 2 to s herein to produce the petitioners relatives namely 1) Anugu Shankar Reddy s/o. Raji Reddy, aged 30 years, Occ: Business Narkatpally Mandat, venkatapuram village, Nalgonda district, 2) Yedla Shiva Reddy S/o Linga Reddy, aged 20 years, Bendta Padu Village, Narkatpalty Mandal, Natgonda district, before this Hon'ble High Court and set them at liberty and pass such other order or orders.,.,,

¶38

Writ Petition No.3308 of 202t, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following prayer:

¶39

"to issue a Writ, order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS dir€cting the Respondents 2 to 5 herein to produce the petitioners relatives namety 1) Chappidi Janareddy S/o, Lakhsma Reddy, Aged 42 years, Nomuta village, Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District, 2) Chappidi Lavanya W/o, Janareddy, Aged 37 years, Nomula village, Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District, 3) yanala padma W/o.Krishna Reddy, Aged 32 years, Bendal pahad Near pa a Pahad village, Narkatpally Mandal, Nalgonda district, 4)yanala Janareddy S/o Krishna Reddy aged 35 years, Bendal pahad Near Palla Pahad village, Narkatpally Mandal, Nalgonda district, before this Hon'ble High Court and set them at liberty and pass such other order or orders,,"

¶40

We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the 3) petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

¶41

ARR J&Dr'SA^J NP Nos^{3f95andl30E ot202l}

¶42

¶43

representing^{the learned Advocate Generalfor respondent Nos'1 to 5} in both^{the writ petitions and perusedthe record'}

¶44

The learned^{counsel for the petitionerin both the writ petitions} 4) would^{submit that in the early morningof04'02'2OZl 'the} respondent^{Nos'4 and 5 have taken away the detenusnamely} l)Anugu^{Shankar Reddy' 2) Yedla Shiva Reddy' 3)Chappidi} Janareddy,^{4) Chappidi Lavanya'5) YanalaPadma' 6) Yanala} lanardhan^{Reddy, from their residence'without intimationto} anybody^{and without followingdue procedure and illegally detained} them, which^{amounts to deprivationof life and personalliberty} guaranteed under^{the Constitution oflndia' Thereafter' the} respondents^{have registered a falsecase against the detenusand} remanded them^{to judicialcustodyon tL'02'2021'Itis also} contended that^{law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in} D.K.Basu vs. State of^{West Bengall} ,^{has applicationto the facts of} the cases on hand and^{ultimately,prayed to grant the relief as} indicated above.

¶45

On the other hand, the learned Assistant^{GovernmentPleader} for Home representing the learned Advocate General for respondents, would submit that the alleged detenus are accused in Crime No.29 of 2O2l of Nakrekal PS, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 354, 1208 read with 109 IPC and they were arrested and remanded to^judicial custody on 11.02.2021. There is no illegal detention as alleged and ultimately prayed to dismiss both the Writ petitions.

¶46

'⁽¹⁹⁹⁷⁾ I scc 4 16

¶47

¶48

,r r.. r,lll;!fr?i]fri

¶49

Here, it is apf to state that Habeas Corpus is a writ cailing upon the person who has ittegally/wrongfuily detained another, to produce the latter before the court, in order to ret the court know on what ground he/she has been detained, and to set him/her Free if there is no legal justification for the detention. A writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued, when a person is not in illegal/unlawful detention.

¶50

In the instant case, as seen from the material placed on record and the submissions made by both sides, it is culled out that the alleged detenus were remanded to^judicial custody on 11.02.2021 in Crime N0.29 of 202L of Nakrekal PS. Under these circumstances,^no case of illegal or unlawful detention of the alleged detenus^{is made} out. If there is any unlawful detention^{or harassment as alleged,that} can be agitated by instituting^{appropriate proceedings against the} concerned. Therefore,^{no relief as sought by the petitioners can be} gra nted.

¶51

With the above^{observations,both the Writ Petitions are}

¶52

disposed of. There^{shall be no order as to costs'}

¶53

Miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany, pendingin both the writ} petitions, shall stand closed

¶54

SD/- K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

Sr-,,' SECTION OFFICER

¶57

To,

¶58

I The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶59

The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 2 The Deputy Superintentendent of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 4. The Station House Officer, Nakirekal P.S. Nalgonda District.

¶60

The Station House Officer, Narketpalli P.S. Nalgonda Diskict

¶61

One CC to Sri. Abdul Wahid Basha, Advocate IOPUCI 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 8. Two CCs to the Advocate General, High Court for the State of Telangana. tourl

¶62

o Two C.D. Copies Prk \ "4-:

HIGH COURT

DATED:'121O212021

COMMON ORDER

WP. Nos. 3295 AND 3308 of 2021

¶67

E TA
'i 25tEB2021 '(
t,
._'l:

¶68

Disposing of the WPs' without costs.

¶69

*t6-

Maligi Reddy Kavitha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maligi Reddy Kavitha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Ramson Food Processing Industries Vs Bank of Baroda and Another

M/s. National Theatre Vs State of Telangana and 2 Others

Mr. Kishore Sethuraman and 4 others Vs M/s. Union Bank and 2 others

Sri. Kamasamudram Vinod Vs State Bank of India

M/s Milleto Food Industries Vs Bank of Baroda

Zilla Nagi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana