Allowed

RamtenkiSwarupa v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Aug 2021WP/7849/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common advance order allowed two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking habeas corpus for two detenus. The High Court set aside the impugned detention and confirmation orders and directed the respondents to release the detenus forthwith if they were no longer required in criminal cases.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions allowed; impugned detention and confirmation orders set aside; detenus directed to be released forthwith.

RamtenkiSwarupa Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS.7849 AND 7850 OF 2021

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 7849 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ramtenki Swarupa, W/o.Ramtenki Raj Kumar, Aged about 25^yea rs, Occ. Housewife, Fl/o.Ramaraopalle Village, Palakurthy il/andal, Peddapalli District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its^{Principal Secretary, General Administration} (Spl.Law and Order) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam.

¶14

The Jail Superintendent, Central Prison,^{Warangal' TelanganaState.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof Indiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to} issue any appropriate writ,^{orderor direction more particularlyone in the nature of} ,Writ of Habeas corpus" under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia directing the respondents to^{produce "Ramtenki Rajkumar S/o.LateBhumaiah",now detained at} central Prison warangal,^{warangalDistrict, beforethis Hon'blecourt and he maybe} ordered to be released^{forthwith / set at libertyafter declaring his detention vide} C.No.31/PDCELL/CCRB/RGMt2O2O^{daled4-11-2020passedby the 2nd respondent} and consequential confirmation^{orders passed by the 1"t respondent as illegal,} unconstitutio na l,^{vo id.}

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO:^{7850 OF 2021}

¶18

Between:

¶19

Ramtenki @ Durgam^{Nirmala,W/o'Ramtenkr Saraiah} @^Venkatesh, , , nd"J-j66rYZA tdars,^{OCc.Housewife,Rl/o.Ramaraopa-lleVillage, Palakurthylvlandal,} Peddapalli District.

¶20

...pETtTtoNER

¶21

AND

¶22

1 . The state of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal secretary, General Administration} fSrl.Law and Ordei)^{Departinerit, Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶23

. ihe Commissioner of^{Police, Ramagundam.}

¶24

¶25

3 . fHe "raii Superintendent,^{CentralPriion,Warangal, Telangana State'}

¶26

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶27

il2lt

¶28

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Habeas Corpus" under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia directing the respondents to produce "Ramtenki Saraiah @ Venkatesh S/o.Late Bhumaiah", now detained at Central Prison Warangal, Warangal District, before this Hon,ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith / set at liberty after declaring his detention vide C.No.29lPDCELL/CCRB/RGM/2020 dated 4/1 1/2020 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequential confirmation orders passed by the 1st respondent as illegal, u nconstitutiona l, void.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner in both W.ps.: SMT. SUJATHA KURAPATI

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents in both W.ps.:

¶31

SRI A. MANOJ KUMAR, AGP FOR HOME FOR

¶32

THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶33

IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HON.BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶35

WRITPE TITION Nos .7849 A ND 78sO O F 2O2L

¶36

COMMON ADVANCE ORDER: (per Hon,bte Dr.SA,J)

¶37

In the result, both the Writ^petitions are allowed. The impugned detention orders vide C.No.31/PDCELL/CCRB/RGM/ 2020 and C.No.29IPDCELL/CCRB/RGM/2020, of even date, dated 04.L7.2020, passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential confirmation orders vide G.O.Rt.Nos.181 and 179, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, of even date, dated 20.01.2021, passed by the respondent No.1, are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenus, namely Ramtenki Rajkumar, S/o^{Late Bhumaiahand} Ramtenki Saraiah @ Venkatesh, S/o. Late^tshumaiah, at^liberty forthwith, if they are no longer^{required in} any^{other criminal}

¶38

case,

¶39

(Detailed order follows)

¶40

¶41

¶42

SD/. K. SAILESHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR i, ,\ .,. -/ tv",

¶43

,TRUE^COPY' SECTION^OFFICER

¶44

to,.,. ,n" principal Secretary, General Administration (Spl.Law and order) ' De"p;,1il;;i stiG oii"r*ga1a' Secretarrat'^Hvderabad

¶45

3 Ti: 3jru'pTllHs:ri^{ss;ffT?g:H?flrangarreranganaState(Bv speed} Post)

¶46

t. ili,3:;:"'s}^{?#fl:n[:ffi 8fl't],1x?silf,jo#Sro""''"sana at Hvderabad}

¶47

u. l?1'1".^{to the Additional Advocate General' High Court for the Stateof} " il,rr.gr"i;t HYderabad [oUT]

¶48

Two CD^CoPies

¶49

B. One^{SPare CoPY}

¶50

cHLi/

¶51

HIGH^COURT

¶52

DATED:1^61081202'l

¶53

1tt E STAI€
(/
(v
c. 1B AUB202I oZ
c,
.1. .

o5.gp,r1c

¶54

GOMMON^{ADVANCE ORDER}

¶55

W.P.Nos.7849^{and 7850 of 202'l}

¶56

ALLOWING THE BOTH^{WRIT PETITIONS} WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

RamtenkiSwarupa v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

RamtenkiSwarupa 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Ramanlal Vs the Income Tax Officer

G.Ramanlal Vs Income Tas Officer

G.Ramanlal Vs Income Tax Officer

Ramtenki , Durgam Nirmala Vs The State of Telangana

Mukesh Kumavath, Vs The State of Telangana

Mukesh Kumavath Vs The State of Telangana