High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas corpus Petition declaring the action of the respondent No.5 in non- initiating to trace-out whereabouts of the wife of the petitioner by name Bokka Chaitanya W/o Anjaneyulu, aged about 28 years, Occ. Housewife, R:/o Saidabad, and non-initiating to hand over the wife of the petitioner from the iilegal detention of the respondent No.6 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the respondent No.5 to trace-out whereabouts. of the wife of the petitioner by name Bokka Chaitanya Wio a Anjaneyulu, aged about 28 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Saidabad' and to hand over the wife of the petitioner from the illegal detention of the respondent No.6 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unde" Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondert No.5 to trace-out whereabouts of the wife of the petitioner by name Bokka rlhaitanya W/o Anjaneyulu, aged 'about 28 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o Saidabad, and to hand over the. wife of the petitioner from the illegal detention of the respondent No.6 pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DINESH REDDY MALTREDDY REP SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 TO 5: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA' SPECIAL GP REP ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUTUI BHA?TACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.858O OF 2025 Mr. Dinesh Reddy Malireddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for thc pel itioner. Mr- Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Govemment Pleader representing the learned Advocate General for the respondent Nos.l to 5. ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacha.rya) The present \,1.rit petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus against the alleged detenue who is the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner complains through learned counsei, that the alleged detenue is with the respondent No.6 who is the petitioner's neighbour. Counsel submits that the alleged detenue has left the petitioner's matrimonial home to live with the respondent No.6. Counsel submits that the petitioner was not allowed to meet his wife/ alleged detenue by the respondent No.6 and his family members. 2, The learned Special Government Pleader (S.G.P) has handed over written instructions which contains three earlier complaints filed by the same petitioner with the Meerpet Police Sl.ation on I8.O4"2O23, 23.OI.2O24 and 1I.O9.2O24. All the three complaints/FlR's were lodged with the Meerpet Police Station. 'I'he S.G.P submits that although Station House Offrcer (SHO), Meerpet I ). has not been made a party to the present writ petition, the S.G.P. has obtained instructions that the alleged detenue has appeared before the Meerpet Police Station to say that she has voluntarily left the petitioner's house to live with the respondent No.6.

3. The written instructions also plead that the SHO of the Saidabad Police Station has registered a Criminal Case under the missing person category on 19.03.2O25 and he is taking all required steps pursuant to that case. The concerned SHO has also dispatched Look Out Notices to all Police Stations with a request to display the Look Out Notices on their Notice Boards.

4. It is clear from the above facts that the alleged detenue, who is an adult, has voluntarily left the petitioner's house. This is a fit case where the concerned SHO should take necessary steps with referencc to the complaints lodged with the Police. In fact, all such necessary steps have already been taken by the concerned SHO. The written instructions show that the petitioner has hled three eariier complaints for locating the alleged detenue before the Meerpet Police Station. The facts presented to the Court do not disclose any basis for invoking the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the petitioner's complaint to the Saidabad Police Station also shorvs _- i I ! I J that the petitioner is aware of the location of the alleged detenue in the house of the respondent No.6.

5. Hence, this is clearly not a case either of disappearance or illegai detention where the Court would be persuaded to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus for production of the alleged detenue before the Court. The petitioner has not been able to place aly facts which would show that the alleged detenue has been illega1ly detained by the respondent No.6 or that the concerned SHO has failed to take necessary steps to locate the alleged detenue.

6. Thus, we do not frnd any merit in the writ petition. W.P.No.8580 of 2025, along with a1l connected applications, rS accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. I To, SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHAM BA D PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICE R \) 't. One CCto SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate [OPUC] - i. i;; 6ci t" AijvocArE ceuennl, Hish court for the State of Telangana, 3. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad [OUTI BM LS A rt' HIGH COURT DATED:2410it12025 ORDER WP.No.8580 of 2025 IAsErl1 ( /\+ J 3 ltAPBm t o I].) pA rcH t o e DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS v /z 3 /aZr