THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Mr.Suresh Boini, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner’s son/detenu was detained by the Medipally Police on 25.07.2025 and continues to remain in detention till date. Counsel for the petitioner says that the detention is illegal and that the detenu was kept in Police custody for extraneous reasons.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has filed written instructions. The instructions contain several documents reflecting the undisputed facts of the case. The documents show that the detenu is the accused No.1 in a Criminal Case registered against the detenu on 21.07.2025 pursuant to a Complaint made by a person who was attacked by the detenu on 21.07.2025. The copy of the complaint along with photographs of injury sustained are part of the record. The name of the detenu Madhyanapu Nithin alias Maya is mentioned in the FIR as the suspected accused.

4. The Court is further informed that the detenu himself went to the Medipally Police Station on 22.07.2025, 23.07.2025 and 24.07.2025, and promised to return to the Police Station with other persons who were involved in the attack on the complainant. The detenu however became untraceable on and from 25.07.2025.

5. The discrepancies between the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the writ affidavit would be evident from the petitioner’s Complaint dated 25.07.2025 which also forms part of the writ petition.

6. In the Complaint, the writ petitioner admits that she accompanied her son/detenu to the P.S. Medipally on 22.07.2025, 23.07.2025 and 24.07.2025 and returned home each day including on 25.07.2025. The Complaint states that the detenu thereafter went to hospital for treatment and informed the petitioner that he will go to the Police Station.

7. From paragraph No.6 onwards, the writ affidavit states that the petitioner accompanied the detenu to the Police Station on 22.07.2025, 23.07.2025 and 24.07.2025. It is also stated that the petitioner and the detenu returned home at 10.00 P.M.

on 24.07.2025.

8. Paragraph 9 of writ affidavit states that on 25.07.2025, the detenu said that he will go to the hospital for treatment and thereafter he will go to the Medipally Police Station. There is no evidence in the writ petition to show that the detenu was thereafter detained at the Medipally Police Station from 25.07.2025. The only statement made in the said paragraphs is that the petitioner suspected that the detenu was detained at the Medipally Police Station. Paragrpah 11 mentions that the Complaint was filed by the petitioner on 25.07.2025.

9. It is clear from the above that the entire case of the petitioner of the detenu being detained illegally by the Medipally Police Station is based on conjectures. The petitioner’s case is contrary to the written instructions placed by the learned Special Government Pleader which specifically states that the Inspector of Police, Medipally Police Station has deputed one Sub-Inspector and one Police Constable to apprehend the detenu, who is the accused No.1 in the FIR registered pursuant to the Complaint received by the Police.

10. It is well settled that a writ petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained unless the petitioner shows a case of illegal detention i.e., detention which is not in accordance with law.

11. We accordingly find no merit in the writ petition.

12. W.P.No.22970 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed in terms of the above. All connected applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________________