RAJESH S/O. LATE SHANKARAPPA NO. 150, 3RD CROSS 3RD MAIN, SANJAYNAGAR MARATHALLI, BANGALORE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE, CCB POL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 18.9.12, we passed the following order: Mr. Chandramouli, learned SPP, has placed on record an affidavit of Mr. C. Balakrishna, Inspector of Police, HAL Police Station, Bangalore City, stating that the detenue was arrested by them on 13.9.12 in connection with Cr. No. 8/12. The telegram, which has been converted into Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, sent by brother of the detenue states that, his younger brother was arrested on 4.9.2012 and on 9.9.12 he was taken to Mangalore in a Tavera vehicle. The telegram further states that when he made an enquiry about his brother with CCB Police, Bangalore, they told him that he should ask CCB Police, Mangalore. When he went to Mangalore and asked CCB Police, Mangalore, they told him that his brother was arrested and brought by CCB Police, Bangalore in a Tavera Vehicle. We do not find any reference in the reply affidavit to the aforesaid allegations made in the telegram. We, therefore, direct some responsible officer to file further affidavit dealing with the aforesaid allegations in the telegram. S.O. for further hearing on 24.9.12. Today, Mr. Chandramouli, learned SPP has placed two affidavits on record. The first affidavit is of Mr. C. Balakrishna, Inspector of Police, HAL Police Station, Bangalore City and other affidavit is of Mr. S.V. Guled, Assistant Commissioner of Police (W & N), Central Crime Branch, Bangalore City, Bangalore.

(2.) WE have perused both the affidavits. From the affidavit of Balakrishna, it appears that Shridhar S. Prakash -the detenue, was arrested on 13.9.12, in connection with Cr. No. 8/12 and he was produced before the learned Magistrate at 10.00 a.m. on the same day. He is now in judicial custody.

(3.) WE have perused the application filed by him and the order passed by the Court below rejecting his prayer for bail. Nowhere in the application, the applicant Shridhar S. Prakash has made any grievance or statement that he was arrested on 4.9.12 as alleged in the telegram. The telegram was sent by one Rajesh claiming to be the brother of detenue. According to the Investigating Officer, when they tried to get in touch with the brother of the detenue, it transpired that the detenue does not have brother by name Rajesh and the address mentioned in the telegram was incorrect. Keeping that in view and the statements made by the Police Officials, on affidavit, we dismiss this suo motu writ petition (Habeas Corpus) since we are satisfied that the detention of Sridhar S. Prakash is not legal.