Tanseem Fatima Vs. Joint Commissioner of Police, Crimes and Sit, Hyderabad and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution - jurisdiction - article 226 of constitution of india - writ of habeas corpus against illegal detention by police - investigation reveals that detenu admitted in private hospital and never arrested by police - enquiry as to illegal detention prayed for by petitioner - high court have no jurisdiction under article 226 to order enquiries into alleged illegal detention - enquiry to be ordered by director general of police on complaint made by petitioner and take necessary steps regarding allegations - police to continue with its investigation against petitioner. - - according to her the detention of her husband is bad and illegal.ordern.y. hanumanthappa, j. 1. thiswrit petition is filed by smt. tasneem fatima, w/o mohd. naseentddin, resident of jeevanyarjung colony, sayeedabad, hyderabad, alleging that her husband mohd. naseentddin s/o mohd haneefuddin, has been illegally detained by the 2nd respondent on 4-7-1998 at his residence when he was leaving for hospital for treatment of his disease (slip-disc). earlier to this also the detenu washospitalised for treatment of the said disease in princess durru shahwar hospital, purani haveli, hyderabad. according to her the detention of her husband is bad and illegal. it is also stated in the petition that the detenu is a peace loving and law abiding citizen and is a member of a non-political party jamaat-e-islami, an organisation dedicated to social service to all people.....

Judgment:
ORDER

N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.

1. ThisWrit Petition is filed by Smt. Tasneem Fatima, w/o Mohd. Naseentddin, resident of Jeevanyarjung Colony, Sayeedabad, Hyderabad, alleging that her husband Mohd. Naseentddin s/o Mohd Haneefuddin, has been illegally detained by the 2nd respondent on 4-7-1998 at his residence when he was leaving for hospital for treatment of his disease (slip-disc). Earlier to this also the detenu washospitalised for treatment of the said disease in Princess Durru Shahwar Hospital, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. According to her the detention of her husband is bad and illegal. It is also stated in the petition that the detenu is a peace loving and law abiding citizen and is a member of a non-political party Jamaat-e-Islami, an organisation dedicated to social service to all people irrespective of their caste and religion. According to her the party has a glorious record of over 50 years in the promotion of peace, education and welfare of the people. According to her immediately after the arrest of the detenu, enquiries were made and later came to know that her husband was taken to the Task Force, Begumpet and later on shifted to C.C.S., Hyderabad, where he is presently lodged.

2. When the matter came up for admission the Court directed service of notices on the respondents and on service of notice, counter has been filed by one Sri P. Sitaram Reddy, Asst. Commissioner of Police, White Collar Offences, C.C.S., Hyderabad and the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.I55 of 1998 under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 153-A, 420, 471 IPC and Section 25(1) of Indian Arms Act and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 3, 10(3)(b) and 12 of the Passport Act, 1947 read with Section 120(B) IPC and Section 3(2)(a) and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 of C.C.S., Hyderabad. According to him on 2-7-1998 at 16.00 hours information was received from Delhi Police that I.S.I, activity was going on in an Electrical Shop at Toli-chowki, Hyderabad and basing on the said information, on the same day at 22,00 hrs, the Inspector of Police, Task Force, went to the said Electrical Shop and examined the proprietor of the said shop in the presence of mediators. On examination, the said Mohd. Ismail stated that he has been carrying espionage activity and collecting arms and ammunition and high explosive material in collusion with a Pakistani national Junaid, He joined hands with Junaid to cause unrest in India and cause damage to the internal security of India. He also admitted that therewere few associates of him who are involved in the said activity. After recording the confession statement of Mohd. Ismail he was arrested at 22.00 hrs. on 2-7-1998. Based on the complaint given by the Inspector of Police, Task Force, a case was registered in Cr.No. 155 of 1998 under Sections 121, 121(a), 122, 153(a), 420, 471 IPC. Section 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 3, 10(3)(b) and 12 of the Passport Act, 1947 read with Section 120(B) IPC; Section 3(2)(a) and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 of C.C.S., Hyderabad. Based on the confessional statement of Mohd. Ismail, he arrested Mohd. Mansoor and Farooq Ahmed, both Pakistani nationals on 3-7-1998 at 4.00 hrs and seized high explosive substance (RDX) of 8 Kgs., 2 pistols, 20 live rounds. All the three accused were produced before the XXI Magistrate, Hyderabad at his residence on 3-7-1998 night and the Magistrate directed the Police to reproduce them on the next working day. Accordingly they were produced before the said Magistrate on 4-7-1998 with a requisition for Police custody. The learned Magistrate passed orders for Police custody of the accused till 13-7-1998. It is further stated that as per the information given by the accused, he arrested Syed Jaffer Hussain, Mohd. Omer, Mohd. Abdul Rawoof, Khalid Bawajeer on 7-7-1998. They were produced before the XXII Magistrate, Hyderabad on 8-7-1998 and the Magistrate remanded them to judicial custody and they are lodged in Central Prison, Secunderabad. hi the course of investigation it was found that the alleged detenu had arranged the marriage of Mohd. Saleem Junaid, who was arrested by Delhi Police on 1-7-1998 in connection with a crime relating to waging war against the State with the daughter of Mohd. Ali Khan of Hyderabad on 10-1-1996. He also hosted a dinner in the honour of Mohd. Saleem Junaid, inviting his friends and relatives and introduced Junaid to them as a Mujayudeen for the Islamic cause in Jammu and Kashmir and it was their duty to support him. The alleged detenu arranged for purchase of a Tata Mini Van to Junaid. He also arranged for accommodationto Junaid and his newly wedded wife. Further the investigation into the matter reveals that the alleged detenu is admitted in a private hospital undergoing treatment for slip disc. He was not arrested by the Police either on 4-7-1998 at 11.30 a.m or on any other subsequent date. Thus there is denial of the alleged detention of the detenu. The alleged detenu filed an affidavit denying the averments made by the respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that there shall be an enquiry as to the illegal detention of the detenu.

3. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the High Court is not to make a roving enquiries into the alleged illegal detentions by the Police. It is open for the petitioner to make a complaint to the Director-General of Police, to enquire into the alleged detention of the detenu and in turn the Director-General of Police, may order enquiry into the alleged detention of the detenu by any one of the Police Officer and if anything is proved it is for him to take action against the concerned according to law.

4. The observations now made herein will not affect the Police, if they so advised to held further investigation against the alleged anti-national activities of the alleged detenu. The Writ Petition is, accordingly closed.