B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) ONE S. Subbaiah of Nellore District, by telegram, dated 01-10-2002, brought to the notice of the Hon ble the Chief Justice, that his brother Sarvepalli Sreenivasulu s/o Ratnaiah r/o Kota, was taken away by the Head Constable by name Narasaiah of kota Police Station, from the premises of r. D. O. , Gudur, while he was coming out of the Sub-Jail, Gudur, at about 06-15 p. m. , on 28-09-2002, after obtaining bail in Crime no. 103 of 2001 and detained him in the police Station without producing him before the Magistrate. He also stated in the telegram that his brother is likely to be implicated in some false cases and his life is in danger. Stating so he sought for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the alleged detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. ( 2 ) AS per the version of the respondents one M. Srinivas Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Kota Police Station, found the alleged detenu moving in suspicious conditions at about 03:30 hours on 16-12-2001, while he was on night patrolling, and taken him into custody after informing the grounds of arrest. He was brought to the police Station at 04:00 hours and registered crime No. 102 of 2001 under Section 41 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, basing on the police proceedings. It is also their case that about 14:45 hours after taking lunch, under the pretext of throwing away the empty lunch packet, the alleged detenu came out of the Police Station and escaped from the lawful custody. Again for this offence, the Station House Officer, registered a case in Crime No. 103 of 2001 on the same day under Section 224 of the Indian Penal code. Further, on 10-06-2002, having come to know of the filing of the charge sheet the alleged detenu surrendered himself before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kota, who in turn remanded him to judicial custody. Subsequently, he was released on bail on 28-09-2002. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the alleged detenu was arrested at the Sub Jail itself at about 6-15 p. m. , on 28-09-2002, the respondents showed the arrest at 20:00 hours on 29-09-2002. Subsequently, he was released on bail on 28-09-2002. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the alleged detenu was arrested at the Sub Jail itself at about 6-15 p. m. , on 28-09-2002, the respondents showed the arrest at 20:00 hours on 29-09-2002. Perhaps having come to know of the telegram given by the petitioner to the Hon ble the Chief Justice, he produced the alleged detenu before the judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kota, in the late hours of the Court, who seemed to have released after bound over him for his good behaviour for a period of six months in m. C. No. 6 of 2002, on 30-09-2002. Since the very act of the respondents is not only highhanded but also arbitrary, we would like to deal this case on merits. ( 4 ) UNDER Section 41 (1) of the Code of criminal Procedure, the Station House officer, on receipt of credible information or on a reasonable suspicion that a person is likely to commit an offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal code, can arrest the person without a warrant from the Magistrate. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the version of the police is that while the Sub Inspector is on night patrolling duty at about 03-30 hours i. e. , in the earlier hours of 16-12-2001, he found the alleged detenu moving in suspicious circumstances and taken him into custody. As the alleged detenu was taken into custody only on a suspicion, the moment he was taken to the Police Station, the Station House Officer, is expected to interrogate and also find out the intention of his movement in the wee hours of the day and whether he is moving to commit an offence punishable under any of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. If he is satisfied that the movement of the alleged detenu is intended to commit an offence, the police are bound to produce the detenu before the Executive Magistrate. If the magistrate is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the person arrested is moving in suspicious circumstances to commit an offence, on the basis of the information given by the Police, he may require him to show cause for executing bond with or without sureties for his good behaviour for a period not exceeding one year. If the magistrate is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the person arrested is moving in suspicious circumstances to commit an offence, on the basis of the information given by the Police, he may require him to show cause for executing bond with or without sureties for his good behaviour for a period not exceeding one year. Before passing an order to execute a bond for good behaviour, the Magistrate is bound to issue a show cause notice under Section 111 of the code of Criminal Procedure to the concerned person specifying the offence for which he is being charged, to put forth his case and also the substance of the information received he shall pass an order in writing specifying the amount of the bond to be executed and the term for which he should be on good behaviour with or without sureties. ( 5 ) UNDER Section 169 of the Code of criminal Procedure, the Station House officer, after arrest of the man moving under suspicious circumstances, shall cause investigation to find out the circumstances under which the man is moving in the wee hours and if he comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence or reasonable belief to the suspicion to justify in forwarding of the accused to the Magistrate, he shall release him by executing a bond with or without sureties, as per his discretion. ( 6 ) UNDER Section 170 of the Code of criminal Procedure, if the officer could collect sufficient evidence during the course of investigation, to arrive at a reasonable suspicion, he then shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate, empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and request the Magistrate to try or commit him for trial or if that offence is bailable and the accused is able to furnish security, shall release him after taking security for his presence as and when required. ( 7 ) FROM the facts of the case it is seen that the person was arrested at 03:30 hours on 16-12-2001 and he was in the custody of the police up to 14:45 hours. ( 7 ) FROM the facts of the case it is seen that the person was arrested at 03:30 hours on 16-12-2001 and he was in the custody of the police up to 14:45 hours. Either in the so called charge sheet filed under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the counter filed before this Court, the Station house Officer has not produced any evidence to show that he conducted investigation wherein he could collect sufficient evidence that the person is moving in suspicious circumstances to commit an offence. In fact, what action the S. H. O. , has taken after the person was taken into custody for about 12 hours is not forthcoming. ( 8 ) BE that as it may, the accused escaped from the custody of police for which they have charge sheeted him and the J. F. C. M. has taken cognizance of the offence and also released him on bail. ( 9 ) NOW, the question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the police is bound to take the person into custody for the proceedings, dt. 16-12-2001, on the basis of which a Crime No. 102 of 2001 was registered under Section 41 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at this length of time, (i. e. ,) on 28-09-2002 as contended by the petitioner or on 29-09-2002 at about 20:00 hours as per the version of the Police. ( 10 ) THE provisions relating to the arrest and production of the accused before the magistrate under Section 41 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were already dealt with supra. In the normal course, the police are expected to conduct an investigation after taking the alleged accused into custody and if they are satisfied that the detenu was moving without any intention to commit any offence, the S. H. O. , is bound to release him under Section 169 of the Code of criminal Procedure. In the normal course, the police are expected to conduct an investigation after taking the alleged accused into custody and if they are satisfied that the detenu was moving without any intention to commit any offence, the S. H. O. , is bound to release him under Section 169 of the Code of criminal Procedure. Even if he finds sufficient justification for taking the man into custody, if that offence is bailable, he is bound to release him on bail without producing him before the concerned magistrate by taking an undertaking that he will appear before the Magistrate as and when the Magistrate requires his presence, ( 11 ) AS stated supra, till now, there was no whisper either before the Magistrate or before this Court that the S. H. O. , came to reasonable belief that the accused was moving in the wee hours to commit an offence. If no information is available, the s. H. O. , is bound to release him and the question of producing him before the magistrate does not arise. But, the learned advocate General appearing for the S. H. O. , strenuously contends that since an F. I. R. was issued the same cannot be closed without producing the accused before the magistrate. With our little knowledge and acquaintance with the Criminal administration of Justice, we have never come across such a situation. The Police are always at liberty to file a report even before the Magistrate where a person is charged with an offence punishable under law, a mistake of fact, if they do not find any substance in the contents of the F. I. R. , without producing the accused, as his presence is not necessary. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the contention of the learned Advocate General that unless the accused is produced before the executive Magistrate, the F. I. R. issued earlier cannot be closed, as devoid of merits. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the contention of the learned Advocate General that unless the accused is produced before the executive Magistrate, the F. I. R. issued earlier cannot be closed, as devoid of merits. ( 12 ) WHILE it is the case of the petitioner that the alleged detenu was taken into custody at the Sub Jail, at 6-15 P. M. , on 28-09-2002, the S. H. O. , perhaps having detained him in the Police Station for more than 24 hours, now came up with a plea that he was arrested at 20:00 hours on 29-09-2002, which does not deserve any consideration and we have no hesitation to hold that the s. H. O. , arrested the alleged detenu at Sub jail itself on 28-09-2002. When once we reached this conclusion, it is evident that the s. H. O. , detained the alleged accused in custody for more than 24 hours without producing him before the concerned magistrate. This is again another highhanded act on the part of the S. H. O. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing discussion, we hold that the S. H. O. , has not only detained the alleged detenu, without any information worth credence, on the first date of arrest as well as on the second date of arrest. We would also go on record that this S. H. O. , does not know the provisions of the Code of criminal Procedure, which he is administering and he interfered with the personal liberty of the citizens by resorting to this sort of illegal actions. Hence, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for taking appropriate action on him. We give liberty to the alleged detenu to file a criminal case against this S. H. O. We are of the view that no prior permission of the Court is required to prosecute him since he has misused his powers for detaining a person without any authority and without any substance in his allegations. If the petitioner puts the criminal law into motion against the S. H. O. , the J. F. C. M. , concerned shall dispose of the complaint on merits in the light of the observations made by this Court in this case. ( 14 ) WITH the above observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of. If the petitioner puts the criminal law into motion against the S. H. O. , the J. F. C. M. , concerned shall dispose of the complaint on merits in the light of the observations made by this Court in this case. ( 14 ) WITH the above observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of. ( 15 ) THE Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh.