Judgment :- Amareswari, J. Smt.Rampyari Sarada seeks a Writ of habeas corpus to produce her husband Ramnarayan Sarada in this Court and declare his detention from 18.4.1990 as illegal. 2. The brief facts of the case are-On receipt of information that Matka gambling was going on, Ramnarayan Saradas house was raided by the Circle Inspector of Police, Nizamabad town and the Sub-Inspector of Police, I-Town and II-Town along with other Police Constables and an amount of Rs.3,00,101 was seized along with some Matka chits. Ramnarayan Sarada was arrested and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad on 17.9.1988 and Crime No.152 of 1988 was registered under Secs.3 and 4 of A.P.Gaming Act. The case was taken on file as S.T.C.No.1204 of 1988 and Ramnarayan Sarada was released on bail. According to the petitioner, the case underwent several adjournments due to absence of the complainant and applications were filed for discharge of the accused. 3. While so, as per the averments in the petition, the respondents came to their on 18.4.1990 at 2 a.m. and forcibly taken away her husband in a Jeep and wrongfully confined him in Nizamabad-Town Police Station. She made a representation about the same to the District Collector and the Director General of Police on the next day i.e. 19.4.90. A copy of the said representation is filed along with the petition. She further averred that the respondents were pressurising him to admit the offence and plead guilty with a view to see that the amount of Rs.3,00,000 be confiscated. She filed the present petition on 22.4.1990 for production of her husband in this Court and to declare his detention as illegal. 4. Notice was served on the three respondents viz., the Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad, Inspector of Police, Nizamabad and Sub-Inspector of Police, I-Town Police Station, Nizamabad and they are represented by the Advocate General, None of the respondents have chosen to file a counter-affidavit sworn by them. 5. But a counter affidavit sworn to by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nizamabad stating that “though he is not a respondent in the writ petition, as the 2nd and 3rd respondents are on ‘bandobust’ duty on the eve of Ramzan festival as a super or officer to the 2nd and 3rd respondents” he was filing the counter affidavit. In paragraph 3 of the counter, it is stated that the material allegations made in the petition are denied. In paragraph 3 of the counter, it is stated that the material allegations made in the petition are denied. In Paragraph 4 it is admitted that the petitioners premises was raided and an amount of Rs.3,00,101 was seized along with Matka chits and the petitioner was produced before the First Class Magistrate on 17.9.88 and a case was registered under Secs.3 and 4 of the A.P.Gaming Act and the amount seized was deposited in the Court. It is further stated in the same paragraph that the allegation that Gold ornaments were taken away and that they demanded a bribe of Rs.3 lakhs was denied. 6. In paragraph 5, it is said that the 2nd respondent, Circle Inspector of Police has not been absenting himself from attending the Court in connection with Crime No.152 of 1988. Paragraph 6 is the relevant para and it runs as follows: “The allegations contained in Para 4 of the affidavit are false and are hereby denied. The allegation that Ramnarayan Sarada was forcibly taken away by the respondents and that he was pressurised by the respondents to admit the offence in order to ensure that the amount of Rs.3,00,001 could be confiscated for the State and that he was illegally detained by the respondents till today are all false and are invented for the purpose of this Writ Petition. I submit that the petitioners husband was never brought to the Police Station and no crime is pending against him in III-Town Police Station reference to Art.19(1)(d) and Arts.21 and 22 does not arise at all since he was neither arrested nor brought to the Police Station in connection with any crime”. Paragraph 7 relates to the prayer to dismiss the writ petition. This counter-affidavit was filed on 26.4.1990. 7. The case was posted on 14.6.1990 as the summer vacation had intervened. Paragraph 7 relates to the prayer to dismiss the writ petition. This counter-affidavit was filed on 26.4.1990. 7. The case was posted on 14.6.1990 as the summer vacation had intervened. On 14.6.1990 the petitioner filed a third party affidavit of an Advocate in which the Advocates stated that he has been looking after this case and on the request of the petitioner, he went to Nizamabad I-Town Police Station on 24.4.1990 and saw the petitioners husband in the police cell, that he represented to the Sub-Inspector and the Inspector of police who were there at that time, but they did not take any action, that he visited I-Town Police Station for a second time on 25.4.1990 and saw the petitioners husband at 9.00 a.m. in the I-Town Police Station and that on 30.4.1990 the petitioners husband was brought to the Court of the Munsif Magistrate, Nizamabad at 10.15 a.m. and was left there as the case S.T.C.No.1204 of 1988 stood posted to that date. 8. After this third party affidavit was served and filed, another counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents on 19.6.1990. This time it was filed by one Swami Narayana Pawan, who assumed charge on 12.5.1990 as Sub-Inspector of Police I-Town Police Station, Nizamabad. He states that he was giving information as borne out by records. In paragraph 2 he stated that the matter relates to April, 1990 and he was not in charge of the Nizamabad I-Town Police Station at that time as he had come on transfer on 12.5,1990 and that as per the records available at the Police Station Ramnarayan Sarada was never detained nor kept in Nizamabad I-Town Police Station and the records do not bear out the same. In paragraph 4 he said that a petty Case No.1204 of 1988 is still pending in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad for want of evidence and that it is posted to 11.9.1990. He also stated that Ramnarayan Sarada was not in the I-Town Police Station on 24.4.1990. 9. This is all the material before us. The petitioner is the wife of Ramnarayan Sarada. She swore to an affidavit that respondents 2 and 3 had taken away her husband forcibly and kept in the Police Station. The very next day, she made a representation to the District Collector and the Director General of Police. 9. This is all the material before us. The petitioner is the wife of Ramnarayan Sarada. She swore to an affidavit that respondents 2 and 3 had taken away her husband forcibly and kept in the Police Station. The very next day, she made a representation to the District Collector and the Director General of Police. A copy of the representation is filed before us. The respondents have not chosen to file a counter denying these allegations on oath. The acts alleged are personal to respondents 2 and 3. The counter affidavit is sworn to by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, who has no personal knowledge. The reason given for not filing a counter affidavit by respondents 2 and 3 is that they were on ‘bandobust’ duty on the eve of Ramzan festival. This explanation is hardly convincing. Even if they were on bandobust duty, it would be only for a day or two. It is not difficult for them to swear to a counter affidavit by themselves. If any time was needed, they could have requested the Court for further time. Even in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf, there is nothing than a general denial that the petitioners husband was detained. We are unable to give any credence to this counter affidavit as the allegation is not denied by the persons against whom the allegations are made and the explanation for not filing counter-affidavit is wholly unsatisfactory. 10. Then we have the affidavit of the Advocate, who was appearing to the petitioner in this matter from the beginning. The advocate is aged about 43 years. He was a former Member of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly. He said that on the request of the petitioner, he went to Nizamabad I-Town Police Station on24.4.1990at 12 noon from the Court and also on 25.4.1990 at 9 a.m. and saw the petitioners husband in the cell, that he also appraised the 2nd and 3 respondents in the Police Station about the same and that no action was taken. There is no reason for this Advocate to swear to a false affidavit. He was also a former Member of the Legislative Assembly. Even after this affidavit, respondents 2 and 3 have not filed any counter denying the allegations on oath. Another counter is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, who assumed charge on 12.5.1990. He cannot say what happened on 18.4.90. He was also a former Member of the Legislative Assembly. Even after this affidavit, respondents 2 and 3 have not filed any counter denying the allegations on oath. Another counter is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, who assumed charge on 12.5.1990. He cannot say what happened on 18.4.90. His denial on the basis of the record is neither here nor there as there would be no record about an illegal detention. The counter affidavit filed by the present Sub-Inspector of Police on 14.6.1990 has absolutely no relevancy and does not assist the respondents. 11. From these facts viz., sworn statement of the petitioner, the representation made by her to the higher authorities on the very next day i.e., 19.4.90, the non-denial of the facts on oath by respondents 2 and 3, the 3rd party affidavit filed by the Advocate and former M.L.A. Thomas Chowdary that he saw the petitioners husband in Nizamabad I-Town Police Station on 24.4.90 and 25.4.90 and non-filing of the counter affidavit by respondent No.2 who is still working at Nizamabad and respondent No.3 though transferred, and the filing of the counter affidavit by a Sub-Inspector of Police, who assumed charge on 12.5.1990 and his consequent inability to speak to the actual facts, the only inference that is possible is that the petitioners husband was unlawfully detained in the I-Town Police Station. The fact that the case registered in 1988 is still pending for “want of evidence” as sworn to in the second counter affidavit supports the case of the petitioner that the illegal detention was for extracting a confession. The entire matter was dealt with in a very callous way and respondents 2 and 3 have to be blamed for the same. 12. We may make it clear that we are not deciding about the guilt or culpability of Ramnarayan Sarada against whom the case is pending under the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act. The case has to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial. Here we are only concerned with the illegal detention. Let the men and women of this country have a fair trial in accordance with the procedure established by law. The case has to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial. Here we are only concerned with the illegal detention. Let the men and women of this country have a fair trial in accordance with the procedure established by law. Whether it is an accused or otherwise, the personal liberty of a citizen cannot be tinkered in this fashion by resorting to third degree methods and any interference with the individual liberty of a citizen has to be viewed with serious concern. Since the petitioners husband was already released and left in the Munsif Magistrates Court on 30.4.1990 to which date the case stood posted and at large ever since, the question of releasing him and producing him in the Court does not arise. But the detention of the petitioners husband has to be declared illegal, and he be given some relief. 13. In the circumstances, the only relief that we can give is to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 towards compensation for illegal detention of the petitioners husband from the early hours of 19.4.1990 till 30.4.1990 to the petitioner. 14. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.