Y. Bhaskar Rao, J. - (1.)These two writ petitions for issue of Habeas Corpus relate to one and the same detenu, W.P. 2225 of 1992 being a taken up case on receipt of a telegram dated 4-2-1992 while the other (W.P. 2216/92) is a regular writ petition filed by the father of the detenu-Srinivasulu.
(2.)The events that preceded the filing of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit are : The reference to the parties hereunder is made as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 2216/92. On 11-8-1991 the marriage of one Allampati Sudhakara Reddy, a close friend of the present detenu and two others, namely (i) Raja and (ii) Pakam Sudhakar, took place at Jonnawada temple with one Parveen, daughter of the 3rd respondent (Sub-Inspector). While so, hearing that the above three persons attended the marriage, the 3rd respondent along with the 4th respondent and other constables came to the house of the petitioner in the early hours of 30-1-1992 and took away the detenu by using criminal force in a van and from there went to the house of the other two, namely Raja and Pakam Sudhakar, and took them also in the same van, kept all of them in the Central Crime Station, Nellore, and the persuasions of the petitioner with R-3 to R-4 to release his son and the other two having proved futile, the petitioner moved the 2nd Addl. Judicial Ist Class Magistrate's Court, Nellore, on 5-2-1991 under S. 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code, resulting in the appointment of P.W. 2 an Advocate as Commissioner to search and have custody of the three persons for being produced before the Court the following day. By then the three persons were moved to the III-Town Police Station, Nellore. Therefore, P.W. 2 along with the petitioner (P.W. 1) and the Court Clerk (P.W. 4) went to the III-Town Police Station during evening hours of 5-2-1992 and showed the Sub-Inspector (R-2) the search warrant, proceeded to the lock-up room and found all the three in the lock-up and identified them there with the help of P.W. 1. When P.W. 2 asked for handing over custody of the three persons, including the present detenu, the Sub-Inspector (R-2) refused to do so and did not also endorse his refusal on the warrant when demanded by P.W. 2. P.W. 2 on the following day, viz. 6-2-1992, submitted his report (Ex. p-1) to the Court narrating the facts that took place. The Court again at the behest of the petitioner directed P.W. 2 to take aid of police force and have custody of the three persons. Accordingly, when P.W. 2 went to the police station at 8-00 p.m. on 7-2-1992 again, he could not find any one of the above three persons and on inquiry the Station Writer informed P.W. 2 the Advocate-Commissioner in the presence of P.W. 1 that the other two, namely Raja and Pakam Sudhakar, were produced before the Taluk Executive Magistrate in connection with security proceedings under S. 109, Cr.P.C., and were also released on execution of bonds. Accordingly, P.W. 2 filed his report, Ex. P-2, before the Court on 7-2-1992. The petitioner in that background of the facts filed the writ petition for issue of Habeas Corpus on 13-2-92 in this Court.
(3.)The 2nd respondent, Sub-Inspector of 3-Town Police Station, filed a counter denying allegations made against him. He states that one R. Setyanarayanna, Advocate, Nellore, was arrested by a Constable of his Station House in pursuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the Court in connection with a crime under S. 32 of the A.P. Police Act and since the 2nd respondent could not oblige P.W. 2, a close friend of the said Satyanarayana, in the matter of releasing him, P.W. 2 hurled threats and bore grudge resulting in the present implication. He, however, admitted that on 5-2-92, P.W. 2, another advocate representing the petitioner in the lower Court and P.W. 4 (Court Clerk) came to his police station, when P.W. 2 verbally informed him of the search warrant for the present detenu. The 2nd respondent, therefore, directed his sentry (R.W. 4) to take them to the lock-up room so that they could verify whether the said detenu (Srinivasulu) was under lock-up. P.W. 2 having failed to locate the detenu (Srinivasulu) came back and inquired as to who were the two persons that were kept in the lock-up. He informed P.W. 2 that the two persons, namely (i) Raja and (ii) Pakam Sudhakar, involved in security proceedings under S. 109, Cr.P.C. He denied the allegation that he did not co-operate with P.W. 2 or that he refused to release or produce the detenu (Srinivasulu) before the Magistrate. He also stated that one B. V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate and local Communist Leader, and the two advocates (P.W. 2 and the above referred Satyananrayana) conspired together, hatched a plan, concocted the story that the son of the writ petitioner was illegally detained in his police station, got the petition filed under S. 97, Cr.P.C., by Mr. Prasad, a Junior to Sri Ramana Reddy, had P.W. 2 appointed as the Commissioner and implicated him as alleged with vengence. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
;