IMMANENI PANDURANGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE writ petitioner is a journalist. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 3rd respondent bore grudge against the petitioner for the reason that he was instrumental in getting anticipatory bail to his younger brother, by name Durgarajababu Chowdhary; that on 24-1-1991 during the early hours, the 1st respondent along with staff came to his house at gudivada and forcibly took him by car to Vijayawada; that he was paraded in the streets of Vijayawada with handcuffs; that the 1st respondent did not follow the mandatory procedure prescribed by Section 50 of Criminal Procedure code; that he was produced before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, vijayawada, who has remanded him to Judicial custody till 31-1-1991 with a direction that he should be produced before the Magistrate at Bhivani and that subsequently the learned Magistrate was pleased to grant bail to him in Crl. M. P. No. 6 of 1991 with a condition that he should appear before the Court at bhivani on 11-2-1991. Basing on those allegations the petitioner urged that his liberty and freedom are made subject to his appearance on 1 l-2-1991 at Bhivani, that his liberty was ensured only till 11-2-1991 and, therefore, he should be deemed to be in detention.

( 2 ) DURING the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner " however submitted, that the petitioner was produced before the Asst. Sessions judge, Vijayawada who has granted conditional bail in Crl. M. P. No. 6 of 1991.

( 3 ) THE above writ petition was filed on 6-2-1991. The facts alleged in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit as modified during the course of arguments show that having been apprehended at Gudivada, the petitioner was taken to vijayawada and was produced before the Asst. Sessions Judge, Vijayawada who has initially remanded the petitioner to judicial custody till 31-1-1991 and later on granted bail with a condition that the petitioner should appear before the concerned Magistrate at Bhivani on 11-2-1991. It cannot, therefore, be said that on the date of filing of the writ petition the petitioner was in illegal custody of the 1st respondent. It cannot even be said that there was any illegal arrest, because the 1st respondenthas produced the petitioner before the Asst. Sessions court for remand.

( 4 ) THERE is no averment in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 1st respondent did not have the warrant issued by the competent court to arrest the petitioner. Therefore it cannot be said that the arrest of the petitioner at Gudivada on 23-1-1991 is illegal. At any rate the earliest point of time when this objection could have been raised is when the petitioner was produced before the learned Asst. Sessions Judge. There is no allegation that the petitioner has done so. On the other hand he has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Asst. Sessions Judge, moved for bail and obtained orders of bail. We, therefore, hold that the belated contention raised by the petitioner that he was illegally arrested by the 1st respondent cannot be accepted.

( 5 ) THE scope of a writ of habeas corpus is mentioned in words and phrases in volume 19 at page 6 in the following terms:"the writ of habeas corpus is the remedy which the law gives for the enforcement of the Civil Right of personal liberty. . . . . The writ of habeas corpus is a writ of liberty, and its original purpose was for the release of persons illegally or focibly imprisoned, but when it was made to appear that such detention was by virtue of the process of a Court, the writ was not granted, unless the proceeding or judgment supporting the process was absolutely void. . . . "

( 6 ) IN this case there is no material to hold that the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhivani, are illegal and are absolutely void because the translated copy of the First Information Report furnished by the petitioner shows that the 2nd respondent to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document