S SARAT BABU CHOWDARY Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a journalist. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 3rd respondent bore grudge against the petitioner for the reason that he was instrumental in getting anticipatory bail to his younger brother, by name Durgarajababu Chowdhary; that on 24-1-1991 during the early hours, the 1st respondent along with staff came to his house at Gudivada and forcibly took him by car to Vijayawada; that he was paraded in the streets of Vijayawada with handcuffs; that the 1st respondent did not follow the mandatory procedure prescribed by Section 50 of Criminal Procedure Code; that he was produced before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, who has remanded him to Judicial custody till 31-1-1991 with a direction that he should be produced before the Magistrate at Bhivani and that subsequently the learned Magistrate was pleased to grant bail to him in Crl. M.P.No.6 of 1991 with a condition that he should appear before the Court at Bhivani on 11-2-1991. Basing on those allegations the petitioner urged that his liberty and freedom are made subject to his appearance on 1 l-2-1991 at Bhivani, that his liberty was ensured only till 11-2-1991 and, therefore, he should be deemed to be in detention.

(2.) During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner " however submitted, that the petitioner was produced before the Asst. Sessions Judge, Vijayawada who has granted conditional bail in Crl.M.P.No.6 of 1991.

(3.) The above writ petition was filed on 6-2-1991. The facts alleged in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit as modified during the course of arguments show that having been apprehended at Gudivada, the petitioner was taken to Vijayawada and was produced before the Asst. Sessions Judge, Vijayawada who has initially remanded the petitioner to judicial custody till 31-1-1991 and later on granted bail with a condition that the petitioner should appear before the concerned Magistrate at Bhivani on 11-2-1991. It cannot, therefore, be said that on the date of filing of the writ petition the petitioner was in illegal custody of the 1st respondent. It cannot even be said that there was any illegal arrest, because the 1st respondenthas produced the petitioner before the Asst. Sessions Court for remand.