RAMA CHOWDARY V Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce Vallabhaneni Venkataiah Chowdary, her husband this Writ Petition is filed with the following contentions.

(2.) The alleged detenu husband of the petitioner is a businessman since more than 15 years against whom no complaint was made so far. He was suffering from Diabetes and heart ailment. When the Malakapuram police made enquiries about the whereabouts of the detenu, the petitioner questioned the police as to why enquiries are being made. The Police informed her that her husband was an accused in some criminal cases and hence his presence was required. On 13-7-1997 at 10.30 P.M., the Sub-Inspector of Police, Malakapuram, Law & Order, along with some constables went to the house of the petitioner and took away the detenu to the Police Station, informing the petitioner that the detenu would be produced before the concerned Court on 14-7-1997. The petitioner came to know that someother accused in the same case were arrested and produced nearly one week or 10 days after his arrest, subjecting him to great humiliation in the meanwhile. Apprehending danger to the life of the detenu, the petitioner sent a telegram on 14-7-1997 at 2.30 A.M. to the Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Expecting that her husband would be produced before the Court, the petitioner waited before the Court from 10.30 A.M. to 5 P.M. The Police, instead of producing the detenu before the Court, informed the petitioner that her husband would be produced before the Court if she shows Rs.4,00,000/- of .cash for recovery by the Police. The petitioner again issued another Telegram to the Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad on 14-7-1997 at 10.30 P.M. On 15-7-1997 the Police again approached the petitioner and informed her that her husband would not be produced before the Court unless the demanded amount is shown by the petitioner to the police. The petitioner also came to know that her husband is being tortured by the police in order to extract confessional statements. The non-production of the detenu before the Court within 24 hours from the time of arrest, according to the petitioner, is unconstitutional, arbitrary and illegal.

(3.) Sri A. Raj Kumar, practising Advocate at Visakhapatnam, who represented the petitioner in the lower Court filed an affidavit with the following averments. Though as per the instructions given by the petitioner, he issued telegraphic notice to the third respondent regarding the detention of the detenu, the third respondent failed to produce the detenu before the Court. Therefore, he approached the Judge, Human Rights Court at Visakhapatnam on 19-7-1997 with a petition under Sections 94 and 97 of Cr.P.C. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to search the Malakapuram Police Station. The Commissioner found the detenu in the Police Station. The third respondent failed to show any document pursuant to the arrest of the detenu. Since the third respondent did not give lock and keys of the Police Station safe, the Commissioner could not search the safe. According to him, the petitioner gave a Press statement on 21-7-1997 about the illegal detention of her husband by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer, Malakapuram. He further stated that one Mr. R.S. Sastry, another accused in the same crime was also taken by the Police. He filed a petition before the Human Rights Court which appointed an Advocate Commissioner and the said Commissioner found the said R.S. Sastry detained illegally. Then the third respondent brought the said Sastry out of Police Station and asked him to sit in the Car which was kept 200 yards away from the Police Station. But immediately the third respondent and other police officers took away the said detenu. The Commissioner of Police failed to report before the Court to that effect, whereupon the Court suo motu took cognizance against the third respondent and registered a case which was transferred to the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent foisted a case against him (deponent) and against the wife of Mr. R.S. Sastry. Since the third respondent threatened the petitioner that her husband will be implicated in a case under the P.D. Act, the petitioner gave a telegraphic notice to the third respondent and sent copies of the notice to the Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad and to Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, Advocate at Hyderabad.