[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Thota Dhanalakshmi , Vijayamma vs The State Of Telangana on 30 March, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No. 5537 OF 2019
DATE: 30.03.2026
Between :
Thota Dhanalakshmi @ Vijayamma
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal
Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad,
and six others.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the
action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein subjecting the
petitioners grandsons namely Akula Sanju and Thapetla Gopi in
illegal custody and subject to mental and physical torture from
07.03.2019 and continuing as being illegal, arbitrary and violation
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and violation of D.K.Basu
Judgment and violation of Human Rights and Criminal Procedure
Code and it is further declare the action of respondent Nos. 2 to 4
herein in not providing medical treatment to the petitioner's
grandsons who were severely beaten up and subject to injury is
NTR,J
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequentially direct the respondent No.5 herein to register a
crime against the Nos.4, 6 and 7 for subjecting illegal custody and
mental and physical torture in the name of investigation and
proceed with disciplinary action pass such other order or orders..."
2. I have heard Ms. Sakshi Jha, learned counsel, representing
Mr. V. Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Pradeep,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for
respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's
grandsons were allegedly taken into illegal custody by the
respondent/police authorities on 07.03.2019 and were subjected to
mental and physical torture, in gross violation of their fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further
contended that the said detenues were not provided necessary medical
treatment and were unlawfully detained under the guise of investigation.
On these premises, the present writ petition has been filed seeking
appropriate directions, including initiation of disciplinary action against the
erring officials.
4.1. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home,
on instructions, submits that on 07.03.2019, while respondent No.2 was
NTR,J
on patrolling duty in Kattangur area, it was noticed that certain villagers
had apprehended two individuals, who were later identified as the
petitioner's grandsons, and had allegedly assaulted them. Respondent
No.2 intervened, rescued them from the villagers, and though observing
no visible external injuries, referred them to the Government Area
Hospital for medical examination. Subsequently, on 08.03.2019, Crime
No. 58 of 2019 was registered, and proceedings under Section 109 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated, pursuant to which the
Tahsildar, Kattangur, bound them over and released on the same day.
4.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner's grandsons are allegedly
involved in multiple criminal cases. With respect to the allegation of
illegal detention, it is pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.
No. 5060 of 2019 seeking a writ of habeas corpus, wherein a Coordinate
Bench of this Court, upon consideration of the material on record,
categorically held that there was no tenable evidence to establish that the
detenues were in illegal custody of the police authorities, and accordingly,
dismissed the petition. It is, therefore, contended that the issue of illegal
detention stands concluded, and in the absence of any fresh material, the
present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
NTR,J
5. I have perused the material available on record and carefully
considered the submissions made.
6. The principal contention of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 2
to 4 had illegally detained her grandsons and subjected them to custodial
torture. In support of this allegation, it is urged that even as per the
version of respondent No.2, the grandsons were taken into custody on
07.03.2019, whereas the crime was registered only on 08.03.2019,
thereby suggesting an intervening period of unlawful detention.
7. However, respondent No.2, by way of affidavit, has clarified that
immediately upon taking custody of the individuals from the villagers, and
after observing their physical condition, they were referred to the
Government Area Hospital for medical examination, and thereafter,
appropriate legal proceedings were initiated on the following day. This
explanation remains uncontroverted by any credible material on record.
8. It is well settled that allegations of illegal detention and custodial
torture must be substantiated by cogent and convincing evidence. Mere
assertions, in the absence of supporting material, are insufficient to
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In this context, reference may be made to the
decision of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal,
wherein guidelines were laid down to prevent custodial abuse, while also
NTR,J
emphasizing the necessity of establishing factual foundation for such
allegations.
9. Additionally, in W.P. No. 5060 of 2019, filed by the petitioner
seeking a writ of habeas corpus, this Court had already examined the
issue of alleged illegal custody and categorically held that the material on
record was insufficient to establish that the petitioner's grandsons were
detained by the police. The principle of finality and consistency in judicial
findings would therefore apply, particularly in the absence of any new or
additional evidence.
10. In the present case, apart from bald assertions, no prima facie
material has been placed on record to substantiate the allegations of
illegal detention or custodial torture. On the contrary, the stand of the
respondents that the individuals were rescued from villagers and referred
for medical examination remains unrebutted.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish even a prima
facie case warranting interference. It is trite law that writ jurisdiction
cannot be invoked for conducting a roving inquiry in the absence of
credible material.
NTR,J
12. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, and the
same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications,
if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 30.03.2026
svl
