Amaram Lingareddy v. State Of Telangana And 6 Others

High Court for the State of Telangana The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and The Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Abhishek Reddy W.P. No. 29241 of 2019 Date: 02-01-2020 Between:

Amaram Lingareddy

...Petitioner

And The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 6 others

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner:

Mr. Panga Sivanarayana Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Sripathi Santosh Kumar, GP attached to the office of the AG The Court made the following:

HCJ & AAR, J W.P. No. 29241 of 2019 Dt: 02-01-2020 Order: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan) The petitioner, Mr. Amaram Lingareddy, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition ostensibly on the ground that on 27-12-2019, the police had taken his son, namely Amaram Sandeep Reddy into custody. Ever since then, the whereabouts of his son are unknown. Therefore, the petitioner claims that his son is being illegally detained by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, namely the Station House Officer, Kukatpally Police Station, and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station, respectively.

By order dated 31-12-2019, this Court had directed Mr. Sripathi Santosh Kumar, the learned counsel for the State, to produce Mr. Amaram Sandeep Reddy, the detenu, before this Court today. Today, the learned counsel has filed his counter along with certain documents. The same shall be taken on record. According to the learned counsel, on 23-10-2019, Mrs. Rukmini Rathod Ramesh, the complainant, had lodged an FIR, namely F.I.R. No. 623 of 2019, with the Police Station, Kukatpally, for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, against the detenu. During the course of investigation, on 30-12-2019, the detenu was arrested. On

HCJ & AAR, J W.P. No. 29241 of 2019 Dt: 02-01-2020 31-12-2019, he was produced before the concerned learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has sent the detenu to judicial custody. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, presently the custody of the detenu is not an illegal one.

These facts have not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Since the detenu is presently in judicial custody, his custody is a legal one. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present Habeas Corpus petition. It is, hereby, disposed of.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed as infructuous.

______________________________ (Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ) ____________________ (A. Abhishek Reddy, J) Dt: 02-01-2020 lur