Nakkala Kamalamma v. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA THE HON'BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE SRI RAGHVENDRA SI NGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER W P.No.1 6 4 3 1 of 2 0 1 9 0 5 .0 8 .2 0 1 9 Bet w een Nakkala Kamalamma, W/ o. Nakkala Gopal, Aged about 54 years, Occc: Housewife, R/ o. H.No. 18-182/ 15, Saidulugudi, Shanthanagar, Miryalaguda, Ranga Reddy District.

...PETI TI ONER AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar Counsel for the Respondents: Sripathi Santosh Kumar GP Attached to Advocate General Th e Cou r t m ade t h e follow in g:

THE HON'BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE SRI RAGHVENDRA SI NGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER W RI T PETI TI ON No.1 6 4 3 1 of 2 0 1 9 ORDER: { Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan} Smt. Nakkala Kamalamma, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus writ petition on the ground that her husband, Mr. Nakkala Gopal, has been picked up by the police. However, his whereabouts are unknown.

2.

Mr. Sripathi Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the State, submits that on 02.11.2018 one Mr. Chinthalacheruru Venkateshwarlu had lodged an FIR with the Miryalaguda II Town Police Station against the petitioner's husband, Mr. Nakkala Gopal, for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the petitioner's husband was arrested on 01.08.2019. He was produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The concerned Judicial Magistrate has sent him to judicial custody.

Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the custody of petitioner's husband, presently, is a legal one. In order to support this plea, the learned counsel has submitted certain documents, which shall be taken on record.

3.

A bare perusal of the documents clearly reveals that the statements made by the learned counsel are borne out by the documents.

4.

Since the petitioner's husband happens to be in judicial custody, the custody is a legal one.

5.

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in this Habeas Corpus writ petition. It is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RAGHVENDRA SI NGH CHAUHAN, CJ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DR. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J August 5, 2019 DSK