Vallabaneni Rama Chowdary vs Commissioner of Police and Others

N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.—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.

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.

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.

The second respondent filed counter affidavit contending as under. The alleged detenu is an accused in Crime Nos. 103/97, 181/96, 11/97, 28/97, 41/97, 100/97, 101/97 and 102/97 on the file of the Malakapuram Law & Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam registered on the basis of the complaint given by the Chief Terminal Manager of Indian Oil Corporation, Visakhapatnam, under Sections 407, 420, 468, 469 and 471 IPC. After investigation, on 19-7-1997 the third respondent arrested the detenu at 5 P.M. in connection with crime No. 103/97 and produced him before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate who was in charge of II Metropolitan Magistrate on 20-7-1997 at 4 P.M. The learned Magistrate directed the Police to produce the detenu before the Court on the next working day. Accordingly the detenu was produced on 21-7-1997 before the court and the learned Magistrate directed judicial custody of the detenu. On 20-7-1997 the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam issued orders u/s 2(a) and (g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers. Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as ''the Act'') against the alleged detenu. Hence the detenu was not produced before the Court on 22-7-1997 as the detenu was under judicial custody. Basing on the confessional statements of the detenu, the third respondent recovered Demand Draft for Rs. 5,40,000/- from Sri B. Venkata Reddy, the Managing Partner, Sri Mahalaxmi .Metal Industries and Constructions, Tarnaka, Hyderabad and on 4-8-1997 recovered another Demand Draft for sum of Rs. 4,32,000/- from Sri K. Sreenivas, Harsha Roofings Pvt. Ltd, Pydi Bheemavaram, Srikakulam District. On 16-7-1997 at 3.20 P.M. when the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam made a surprise visit of the Police Station, he did not find the detenu there. The detenu was not taken into custody on 13-7-1997 as alleged by the petitioner. No person by name Sri Rajeswara Rao was working as Sub- Inspector of Police in Malakapuram. The petitioner''s husband was arrested on 19-7-1997 and was produced before the Magistrate on 20-7-1997 as such the petitioner''s husband was never kept in illegal custody. The deponent denied the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the third respondent (sic. party) i.e., A. Raj Kumar, Advocate. As the wife of Mr. R.S. Sastry and the Advocate Sri A. Raj Kumar tried to take away Mr. R.S. Sastry, the accused, out of the Police Station, a case was registered against them. Hence the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as it has no merits.

The third respondent filed Counter affidavit with the following contentions. The alleged detenu is an accused in Crime No. 103/97 under Sections 407, 420, 468, 469 and 471 IPC, on the file of Malakapuram Law & Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam which was registered on 12-7-1997 at 4.30 P.M. on the basis of the complaint given by the Chief Terminal Manager, Indian Oil Corporation. The alleged detenu is also accused in some other Crimes on the file of Malakapuram Law & Order Police Station. During the course of investigation he arrested the alleged detenu on 19-7-1997 at 5 P.M. and produced before the Magistrate on 20-7-1997 at 4 P.M. who directed the police to produce the detenu on the next working day. On 21-7-1997 when detenu was produced before the Court, the Magistrate remanded the accused to judicial custody. Though the alleged detenu obtained anticipatory bail from the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in some criminal cases, he did not approach the Police with sureties as per the conditions laid down in the bail order. He denied the material averments made in the petitioner''s affidavit. Since the alleged detenu was an accused in some criminal cases his custody is legal and hence the infringement of his fundamental rights does not arise. The alleged detenu was arrested on 19-7-1997 but not on 13-7-1997 as alleged by the petitioner. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The third respondent filed additional counter affidavit with the following averments. Even though the third respondent received the message from the Advocate-General''s Office to produce the alleged detenu before the High Court since the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam passed the orders dt.20-7-1997 u/s 3(2) read with Section 2(a) and (g) of the Act against the alleged detenu, the third respondent was unable to produce the alleged detenu before the High Court on 22-7-1997 as he is in Judicial custody. Hence the third respondent has not violated the orders of the High Court. If for any reason the High Court comes to conclusion that the third respondent had disobeyed its orders dt.16-7-1997, the third respondent tenders his unconditional apology.

The third respondent filed another additional Counter affidavit as per the directions of the High Court. He reiterated the averments made in his counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed earlier. He submitted that he has greatest regard for the orders of the High Court; that it was never his intention to disobey the orders of the High Court; that since the alleged detenu was in judicial custody the third respondent was unable to produce the alleged detenu before the High Court on 22-7-1997 and that he has not violated the orders of the High Court. If for any reason the High Court comes to conclusion that he has disobeyed the orders of the High Court dated 16- 7-1997 the third respondent tenders his unconditional apology and prays dismissal of the Writ Petition.

In view of the above averments in the counter affidavits, it is clear that the alleged detenu is an accused remanded to judicial custody and hence his detention is not illegal. On the same lines, Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned Government Pleader submits in view of the counter-affidavits and additional affidavits that the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police will be very diligent and careful in attending the Court orders promptly. In view of the submissions made by the third respondent in Counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit, the Contempt Proceedings under contemplation against him are dropped.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.