MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions, a writ of habeas corpus is sought seeking a direction to the respondent to produce the detenues named therein, before this Court and to set them at liberty and pass appropriate orders.

( 2 ) THOUGH the relief sought in these three writ petitions is writ of habeas corpus to release the individual detenues, the main complaint of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners is that the requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610, to be followed in all the cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf, have been flouted by the police machinery of the State of Andhra Pradesh and failure on the part of the police machinery to comply with the requirements laid down therein would attract imposition of punishment under Contempt of Court as held by the Supreme Court at para 37 of the said decision.

( 3 ) TO meet the general allegations made by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, we desired that the responsible officials of the Police Department to file additional counter affidavits indicating the measures taken by the State Police machinery for implementing the preventive measures suggested by the Supreme Court in the decision D. K. Basil v. State of West Bengal case (supra ). Apart from filing separate counters by the respondents in the writ petition, the Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh has also filed counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit indicating the steps taken by the State Police machinery in the implementation of the directives issued by the Supreme Court in the decision first cited supra.

( 4 ) IN order to examine the allegations made on behalf of the writ petitioners, in the light of the directives issued by the Supreme Court in the decision D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal case (supra), we deem it appropriate to trace the said directives issued by the Supreme Court in the said decision, which are as under: (1) The Police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such Police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. (2) That the Police Officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by atleast one witness. Who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter-signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a Police Station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the Police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the District or Town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the Police Station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the Police Officials in whose cust

Click Here to Read the rest of this document