SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 54531

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Bhukya Ganesh Naik – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 13205/2025



AND WRIT PETITION NO.13205 OF 2025 Mr. Verose Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Verose Sanjana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Mr. K. Sai Akarsh, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

1. The written instruction of the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to

5 is placed on record.

2. The instructions also contain a photograph taken yesterday of the alleged detenue with the respondent No.6/mother of the alleged detenue.

3. The alleged detenue is the minor son of the petitioner and the respondent No.6.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to argue on the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the alleged detenue was forcibly taken from the petitioner’s custody by the respondent No.6. Counsel has not placed any decisions in support of his arguments.

5. We are unable to accept the submission on the maintainability of the Writ Petition.

6. A Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable only in fit cases including where the location of the alleged detenue is not known or where the detention is shown to be unlawful.

7. In the present case, it is undisputed and is also the case of the petitioner that the alleged detenue is with his mother/the respondent No.6. Hence, the Writ Petition fails on both counts. Needless to say, the petitioner’s remedy lies elsewhere but certainly not under the guise of a Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus.

8. Even otherwise, we do not appreciate the aggressive manner of submission of counsel. The conduct does not behove a Senior Counsel who is expected to behave as an Officer of the Court.

9. W.P.No.13205 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed.

Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J Date: 29.04.2025 NDS/SUS

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top