Smt. S. Sandhya vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4892 Tel

       THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
                         AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

                      I.A.No.1 of 2022
                           in/and
              WRIT PETITION No.28405 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Dr.SA,J)

       W.P.No.28405 of 2021, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, who is the wife

of the alleged detenu viz., Saranala Sreedhar, S/o S.Babu

Rao,     seeking     a    Writ    of    Habeas    Corpus     directing   the

respondent-police, to produce the alleged detenu before this

Court, alleging that he was illegally detained by the

respondent-police.

2. I.A.No.1 of 2022 is filed seeking a direction to the

respondent Nos.4 and 5-police stations to produce the CCTV

footages of 09.11.2021 and 10.11.2021.

3. Heard Sri M.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel

representing Ms.Satyasiri, learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Special Government Pleader representing the

learned Advocate General for the respondents and perused

the record.

                                               2            Dr.SA,J & EVV,J
                                                       W.P.No.28405 of 2021

4. Sri M.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel would contend

that the alleged detenu viz., Saranala Sreedhar, was arrested

by the respondent No.3-police and thereafter, he was shifted

to respondent No.5-police station. It is also contended that

the alleged detenu was illegally detained. It is further

contended that there is CCTV footage which reflects the illegal

detention of the alleged detenu. In support of his contention,

learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance over the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paramvir Singh Saini

vs. Baljit Singh and others1.

5. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned

Special Government Pleader, so also, the learned counsel for

the petitioner that the alleged detenu was already set free on

10.11.2021 by the Magistrate concerned holding that the

arrest of the alleged detenu was illegal.

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, as far as the writ

petition is concerned, there is no illegal detention, as the

alleged detenu was set free on 10.11.2021. The learned

Senior Counsel claims for damages for the alleged illegal

Spl.Leave Petition No.3543 of 2020 dt.20.12.2020 3 Dr.SA,J & EVV,J W.P.No.28405 of 2021

detention. In such an event, it is open to the alleged detenu

or any aggrieved person to work out the remedies available

under law.

7. In I.A.No.1 of 2022, it is contended by the learned

Senior Counsel that CCTV footages of 09.11.2021 and

10.11.2021 are necessary to proceed against the persons who

illegally detained the alleged detenu and claim damages.

8. In Paramvir Singh Saini's case (supra), the Hon'ble

Apex Court held that:

"17. xxxx....Most important of all is the storage of CCTV camera footage which can be done in digital video recorders and/or network video recorders. CCTV cameras must then be installed with such recording systems so that the date that is stored thereon shall be preserved for a period of 18 months..."

9. In terms of the aforesaid judgment, respondent No.5-

Inspector of Police, Special Operation Team (Madhapur Zone),

Narsingi, shall preserve the CCTV footages dated 09.11.2021

and 10.11.2021 subject to its availability for a period of 18

months commencing from 10.11.2021.

                                 4                    Dr.SA,J & EVV,J
                                                 W.P.No.28405 of 2021

10. With the above observations/directions, I.A.No.1 of

2022 and the Writ Petition are disposed of.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

______________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Date: 26.09.2022 ssp