WP/25744/2007 of Yaddanapudi Arul Mariya Raju Vs The Inspector of Police, C.C.S., Guntur, on 27 December 2007

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY

AND

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

W.P.No.25744 of 2007

DATE: 27.12.2007

Between:

Yaddanapudi Arul Mariya Raju,Under Trial Prisioner, District Jail,Guntur.

…. Petitioner

And:

Inspector of Police, C.C.S., Guntur,Guntur District and others

…. Respondents

ORDER: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy)

A representation sent by the petitioner to the Hon’ble the ChiefJustice alleging that on 12.12.2006, the Inspector of Police, CentralCrime Station, Guntur, came in the midnight along with Sub-Inspectorof Police, Pattabhipuram Crime Police Station and constablesSubhani and Satyanarayana, picked him from the bed, thrown in thejeep forcibly and kept him in the lock up of Pattabhipuram, and on thenext day i.e. on 13.12.2006, they brought him to his house and forciblylooted his entire samans, cash, deposit receipts and postal depositbook and beat him in black and blue. It is further alleged that he wastaken up to the Nagaralu Post Office on 15.12.2006 and obtained his signatures forcibly and withdrew an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and againkept him in lock up. Again, the same persons took him to the postoffice in a jeep on 18.12.2006 and obtained his signatures forcibly inthe presence of postal staff and withdrew an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-and the same was swallowed by the said persons. It is further allegedthat after 14 days i.e. on 26.12.2006 the said persons showed hisarrest and remanded him to judicial custody by foisting false cases ofgold theft and the police remanded him in 24 cases in different stationsand in different courts in Guntur Town, which are now pending beforeIV, V and VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate’s Courts, Guntur andhence, the representation has taken up as writ petition.

In response to the notice, the Sub-Inspector of Police,Pattabhipuram Crime Police Station, Guntur filed an affidavit statingthat he the petitioner was involved in 15 cases viz., Cr.No.16 of 2006,Cr.No.23 of 2006, Cr.No.29 of 2006, Cr.No.30 of 2006, Cr.No.37 of2006, Cr.No.517 of 2006, Cr.No.550 of 2006, Cr.No.604 of 2006,Cr.No.645 of 2006, Cr.No.737 of 2006, Cr.No.788 of 2006, Cr.No.796of 2006, Cr.No.807 of 2006, Cr.No.808 of 2006, Cr.No.831 of 2006,which were registered in Pattabhipuram Crime Police Station for theoffences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, in which respective chargesheets were filed before concerned Courts and some of the caseswere numbered as calender cases and some of them are yet to betaken on file by respective Courts. It is further stated that he was alsoinvolved in Cr.No.769 of 2006 under Section 380 IPC and Cr.No.783of 2006 under Section 379 IPC on the file of Lalapet Crime PoliceStation at Guntur. It is further stated that in Cr.No.787 of 2006, afterfiling charge sheet, the VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Guntur,convicted the petitioner in C.C.No.452 of 2007 and sentenced him tosuffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of nine months by hisjudgment dated 22.9.2007 and he is undergoing imprisonment at District Jail, Guntur. In Cr.No.803 of 2006 after filing charge sheet inC.C.No.146 of 2007, the VI Additional Munsif Magistrate at Gunturconvicted the petitioner-A2 and sentenced him to suffer SimpleImprisonment for a period of three months by its judgment dated9.4.2007. In C.C.No.230 of 2007 arising out of Cr.No.716 of 2006 inwhich he was arrayed as A-1, the Special Mobile Magistrate at Gunturacquitted him vide its judgment dated 31.7.2007. The case againstpetitioner-A2 in C.C.No.598 of 2007 arising out of Cr.No.791 of 2006on the file of Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur was split up by theMagistrate and kept it pending for trial. It is further stated that on26.12.2006 at 3.30P.M., the Inspector of Police arrested the petitionerin Cr.No.799 of 2006 for offences u/secs.457, 380 IPC on the file ofPattabhipuram police station and he was produced before VIIAdditional Munsif Magistrate on 27.12.2006 and later he wasremanded to judicial custody.

Conclusion

Having regard to the series of cases, which were registered andwhere in some cases he was convicted and sentenced and in somecases necessary charge sheets were filed, no credence can be givento the allegations made in the representation about his detention bythe police illegally and withdrawing an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs asalleged in the representation.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs.

____________________

A. GOPAL REDDY, J

_________________________

G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J