1. B. Vittal Reddy v. State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. P.SUMALATHA, REP. FOR SRI CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAI URTI Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 3: SRI G.ANIKETH REI DY, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER l THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 12346 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "...fo issue an Order or a Direction or a Writ more in the nature of Wit of Mandamus by declaring the action of the * respondent herein in trying to arrest petitioners 1 and 2 herein basing on the non bailable wanant dt.22.2.2017 rssued agatnsf the respondents 5 and 6 herein in P.R.C. No. 33 of 2016 in Cime No 701/2013 of Malkajgiri P S , Cyberabad, issued by the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad at Malkajgii, as arbitrary, autocratic, ultravires and against to the pinciples of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein not to make illegal effotls in executing the non bailable warrant dt.22.2.2017 against petitioners 1 and 2 herein, which ls issued against respondents 5 and 6 in P.R.C. No. 33 of 2016 in Crime No. 701/2013 of Malkajgii P.5., Cyberabad by the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad at Malkajgii in the interests of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Courl deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

2. I have heard Ms. P.Sumalatha, learned counsel, representing Mr. Chandra Sekhar llapakurti, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G. Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since the 3rd respondenustation House Officer, Malkajgiri Police Station was making { ) efforts to arrest the petitioners on the basis of a n< n-bailable warrant issued against respondent Nos 5 and 6 in p.R.C. tJ r 33 of 2016, the present petition came to be filed. However, in view of ti e interim direction issued by this court restraining the arrest of th: petitioners, their grievance has been redressed.

4. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Hcr re submits that a non-bailable warrant dated 22.02.2017 remains pending against respondent Nos. 5 and 6, and that lhe matter is still b: bre the committal court. He further contends that, since the charge-she.: has already been filed and the matter is now before the committal courr, the police cannot arrest the petitioners without seeking directions fr.r r the competent court. Accordingly, the apprehension expressed t y the petitioners stands allayed, and he prays for dismissal of the writ perl tion.

5. I have perused the material available on record

6. Having considered the submissions advanced rr rd in view of the fact that the grievance of the petitioners has been addrr ssed pursuant to the interim order dated 07.04.2017, this court finds it jrst and properto make the said interim direction absorute. ordered acccr iingry. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to avair approgr iate remedies in strict accordance with law. ( ( 3

7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. P.C.SULEKHA DEV SISTANT REGIS ,TO, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Hydeqba 2. The Assistant Commissioner of police, Malkajgiri Divisi 3. The Station House Officer, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad. 4. One CC to SRt CHANDRA SEKHAR |LAPAKURT|, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at , State of Telangana n, Cyberabad. o Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BSR PSK HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 ORDER WP.No.12346 ot 2017 ':, S'i",,riIl$ IJ AN 2t2t 2 ., . .-.--. . '".' : "'"t-'t't.-)i'" DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS +, V q