IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA W.P.H.C. NO.39/2017 BETWEEN SRI MANIKCHAND, S/O MAGARAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AT DILIP JEWELERS, LINK ROAD, T.NARASIPURA - 571 124, MYSORE DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (By Sri B.J.KRISHNA, ADV. FOR Sri K.B.LOKANATH, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 001.
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, MADDURU POLICE STATION, MADDURU, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HEABIOUS CORPUS TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO SECURE THE PRESENCE OF THE DETENUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT.
THIS WPHC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.S.PATIL J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER 1. This writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus is filed by the brother of one Subhash Choudhary seeking a direction against respondents 2 and 3 – the Commissioner of Police, Mysore District and the Circle Inspector, Maddur, respectively to secure the presence of detenue - Subhash Choudhary before this Court.
2. It is alleged by petitioner that his brother – Subhash Choudhary is the proprietor of Dilip Jewelers and Bankers in T.Narasipura Town; on 13.03.2017, at about 12.50 PM when Subhash Choudhary was in his shop, 3rd respondent – Circle Inspector along with his staff entered the shop of the detenue;
they had brought unknown persons along with them; it was alleged against the detenue that he had purchased stolen items from the said unknown persons. It is further stated that 3rd respondent – police forcibly took away the brother of petitioner in their vehicle without informing the local police. Petitioner claims to have immediately gone over to Maddur Police Station where 3rd respondent – Police demanded 400 Gms. gold to be handed over to 3rd respondent for releasing the detenue. In this background, alleging that his brother had been illegally taken into custody from 13.03.2017 till the date of filing of the writ petition (15.03.2017), petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to secure the presence of the detenue before this Court.
3. Respondent – Police have entered appearance. Status report dated 18.03.2017 was filed by K.Prabhakar, Circle Inspector of Police, Maddur Circle stating inter alia that Subhash Choudhary was arrested on 15.03.2017 at T. Narasipura as he was in receipt of stolen property; arrest was made in connection with Crime No.84/2017 of Maddur Police Station; that he was produced before the ACJ and JMFC, Maddur on 16.03.2017. To evidence the same, application filed seeking remand has been produced at Annexure-R1. It is also urged that Subhash Choudhary was released on bail on 17.03.2017 by the Court of JMFC, Maddur.
4. Since it was asserted by learned counsel for petitioner that detenue was indeed arrested on 13.03.2017 and not on 15.03.2017, learned Additional Government Advocate took time to file an additional affidavit.
5. An additional affidavit dated 21.03.2017 is filed by K. Prabhakar, Circle Inspector of Police, Maddur Circle enclosing the order passed by the learned Magistrate enlarging the detenue on bail. Perusal of the said order discloses that detenue - Subhash Choudhary was produced before the Magistrate at 1.45 PM on 16.03.2017. The learned Magistrate questioned the detenue regarding the details of arrest, to which he answered stating that he was arrested at 11.00 AM on 15.03.2017. This statement of the detenue which is reflected in the bail order discloses that detenue was not arrested on 13.03.2017 but was arrested on 15.03.2017.
6. Therefore, we are satisfied that no illegality is committed by the police in the matter of arrest and detention of the detenue. Materials on record disclose that he was produced before the Magistrate within about 24 hours from the time of arrest and that he was later on enlarged on bail by the order passed by the learned Magistrate, nothing survives for consideration in this petition.
Hence, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE VP