ORDER : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. After escaping from the clutches of the Police on 08.11.2020, the Petitioner claims to have gone to her native place at Visakhapatnam and filed the present Writ Petition in the month of January 2021 seeking issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent authorities to produce the three detainees, namely, (1) Smt. Mamidi Parvathi, W/o. M. Pydithalli, (2) Smt. Mamidi Geetha, W/o. M. Tirupathi Rao, and newly born three months old male child of Mamidi Geetha before this Hon’ble court. 2. It would be very much necessary to narrate the facts in detail as averred in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition so as to decide the case on hand. i. The brother of Writ Petitioner, by name, Mamidi Thirupathi Rao, made a representation on 01.10.2018 from Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, as a remand prisoner, to the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, stating that the police of Central Crime Station, Visakhapatnam, are threatening him with dire consequences, and that they will eliminate him like Sri Gorle Pydi Raju in lock-up, as he is a habitual offender. He apprehends threat to his life in the hands of the Police, working in Central Crime Station, Visakhapatnam. ii. After his release from Central Prison, Visakhapatanam, he started living with his wife, by name, Smt. Mamidi Geetha along with his son in an apartment situated in ‘Bommanna Rajukumar Apartment’, Rajamahandevaram, East Godavari District. On 26.10.2020, the mother of the Petitioner, by name, Smt. Mamidi Parvathi, came to know from the neighbouring flat owners, that the Petitioner, Smt. Mamidi Geetha and her minor son are detained in the said Flat since 25.10.2020, by the Police of Prakash Nagar Police (Respondent No.4) and Rajeev Nagar Police Station (Respondent No.5), at the instance of the Superintendent of Police, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District (Respondent No.3). iii. While in illegal detention, the Petitioner (sister-in-law of M.Geetha) came to know the names of the Police personnel during their conversation among themselves. It is also averred that on 25.10.2020 at about 8.00 a.m., about 30 Police personnel came down to their flat and stayed there till 10.00 a.m. During the said period, the Police are alleged to have taken gold chain and two gold finger rings from Smt. Mamidi Geetha, gold chain and gold bracelet from the minor son, apart from cash of Rs.10,000/-. It is further alleged that the Police personnel scattered all the household articles. Apprehending that some more gold articles must have been kept in the almirah, they broke upon the lock, but no articles were found in the safe. According to her, the Police took away the Scooty bearing registration No. AP 39 EB 9882 belonging to Smt. Mamidi Geetha. iv. The averments in the affidavit further show that on 25.10.2020 at about 10.00 a.m., the Police took the Petitioner to Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, without being assisted or accompanied by a lady police constable, and was detailed there till 9.30 p.m. on that day. She was subjected to interrogation to find out the whereabouts of her brother, namely, Mamidi Thirupathi Rao. Later on, she was dropped at her Flat by a lady constable in her vehicle. v. On 26.10.2020, the mother of the Petitioner, after sending WhatsApp message to the Superintendent of Police, Rajamahendravaram, made a representation to the District Collector and others informing about the illegal detention of the detainees. There inaction made her to come down to Rajamahendravaram to know about the position of the detainees. On arrival, she was also detained along with others in the said Flat. However, as stated earlier, on 08.11.2020, the Petitioner claims to have escaped from the clutches of the Police and went to Visakhapatnam. vi. On 09.1.2021, she made a representation to the Registrar, Lokayukta, informing him about the detention of herself, her mother and sister-in-law and the minor child. While the representation dated 09.01.2021 made to the Police is pending with the Malkapuram Police Station, the Police from Pendurthi and Gajuwaka Police Stations are alleged to have gone to the house of the Petitioner at Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam City and threatened her with dire consequences, apart from taking her signatures on blank papers. vii. In view of the illegal detention of the three detainees and purported threat to her life, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 3. Reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, Sri. N.H. Akbar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously argued that the entire family is being illegally confined in the apartment at Rajamahendravaram, and that the alleged detainees are not allowed to move out of the Flat. 3. Reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, Sri. N.H. Akbar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously argued that the entire family is being illegally confined in the apartment at Rajamahendravaram, and that the alleged detainees are not allowed to move out of the Flat. He further pleads that they are not even allowed to throw out the garbage and that the inmates of the apartment are not able provide proper medical treatment to three months old baby apart from giving good food. 4. The docket proceedings indicate that on 01.02.2021, Sri. N.H. Akbar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also Sri. Y.N. Vivekananda, representing the Office of learned Advocate General, were heard and the matter was adjourned to 05.02.2021. At the instance of Sri. Y.N. Vivekananda, who sought time to file a detailed counter, the matter was adjourned to next date fixed i.e., 10.02.2021, on which date, Ms. Fanny Akbar, Counsel representing Sri. N.H. Akbar, sought a week’s time to file reply to the counter filed by the State and, accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed on 18.02.2021. As the matter could not be taken up on 18.02.2021, it was called on 19.02.2021. As the counter filed by the State was not put up with the bundle due to certain defects, Sri. Y.N. Vivekananda took time to cure the defects during the course of the day. Sri. N.H. Akbar, Counsel for the Petitioner also sought time, as he intends to furnish some details through a memo. Hence, the case was directed to be listed on 23.02.2021. However the matter was taken up on 24.02.2021, and after hearing both side, the court passed the following order: “Heard Sri. N.H. Akbar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Sri. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. The averments made in the affidavit go to show that the brother of the petitioner was released from the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam and thereafter, he started living along with his wife-Mamidi Geetha and his son in a flat in Bommanna Rajkumar Apartment at Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. The address given in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 shows that they are living in a flat bearing no. 202, Varun Karthik Apartment, situated at Jaikrishna Park, Ganesh Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. The address given in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 shows that they are living in a flat bearing no. 202, Varun Karthik Apartment, situated at Jaikrishna Park, Ganesh Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. Though there is difference regarding the address given in the affidavit and I.A., learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Varun Karthik Apartment situated at Jaikrishna Park, Ganesh Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, is the apartment where Mamidi Geetha and his son are presently residing along with the mother of the petitioner. It is sought to be projected that the petitioner along with her mother, sister-in-law and minor son of her sister-in-law were detained in the aforesaid flat by the police and some how, the petitioner could escape from the clutches of the police. It is stated that the police have detained the aforesaid three persons, and the police of Prakash Nagar Police Station and Rejeev Nagar Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, are deputing police personnel on the front and rear sides of the flat round the clock from 25.10.2020. It is further stated that food was given to the detainees for three days and thereafter, the police are not providing the food to them. Sri. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader, submits that two women and a minor son referred to in the affidavit are not connected to any case. He vehemently argues that the case set out in the petition is wholly incorrect and the persons, who are alleged to have been detained by the police, are not at all detainees. On the other hand, Sri. N.H. Akbar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that Mamidi Parvathi, Mamidi Geetha and three months old child have been detained, as a result of which only this Habeas Corpus petition has been filed. Considering the matter in its entirety, we direct the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, to visit the flat situated in the address indicated in this order and examine the persons as may be considered appropriate including the neighbours, if any, and submit a comprehensive report within four days from today. Copy of this order be transmitted to the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, by tomorrow morning. Registry will list this case on 04.03.2021.” 5. Copy of this order be transmitted to the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, by tomorrow morning. Registry will list this case on 04.03.2021.” 5. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to the averments made in the counter filed by the Station House Officer, Prakash Nagar Police Station, who is arrayed as 4th Respondent herein. 6. While denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition except to the extent admitted, it was categorically stated that all the alleged detainees are moving freely and attending to their chores in daily life. It is stated that the brother of the Petitioner, by name, Mamidi Thirupathi Rao alias Pawan Reddy is involved in about 39 cases, in various Police Stations in Rajamahendravaram, Jangareddigudem, Visakhapatnam, Srikakulam and Vizianagaram districts. It is further stated in the counter that on receipt of credible information about Mamidi Thirupathi Rao being present in the apartment, along with his wife and child, the deponent -P. Srinivas, who is the Station House Officer, Prakash Nagar Police Station, obtained search warrant, secured the mediators, and also a male and a female police officials, and then proceeded to the said Flat. On knocking the door of the flat, a lady opened the same. After disclosing his identify and ascertaining the name of the lady who opened the door, the Inspector of Police along with Women Sub-Inspector tried to serve search warrant which was refused. Thereafter, on suspicion about the presence of Mamidi Thirupathi Rao, the house was searched maintaining strict decency. As the accused was not found in the Flat, the search proceedings were drafted, and though a copy of the proceeding was tried to be served but the inmates of the house refused to accept the same. This incident occurred on 25.10.2020 between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. 7. The counter further discloses that their enquiries with the neighbours during the search conducted on 25.02.2021 revealed that Mamidi Thirupathi Rao alias Pawan Reddy is residing in the said flat since last few months and moving about in the locality posing himself as “S.I. of Police under suspension”. Insofar as the reference to names of police personnel present in the house, the same is denied. Insofar as the reference to names of police personnel present in the house, the same is denied. It is stated that all efforts are made to divert the attention of the police and the court, so as to see that the police soften their stand on the accused. The counter categorically denies the detention of any of the persons in the flat and also the visit of the police officers to the said flat. 8. As stated earlier, on 24.02.2021, this court directed the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, to visit the apartment situated in the address indicated in the Order and submit a report to this Court. 9. Before referring to the contents of the report, it is to be noted that in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it has been stated that the alleged detainees were detained in ‘Bommanna Rajukumar Apartment’, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, but later, an I.A. came to be filed showing the place of detention at flat No. 202, Varun Karthik Apartment, situated at Jaikrishna Park, Ganesh Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari. On a query posed by the court as to the difference in the addresses mentioned, it has been stated that the petitioner was not aware of the correct address and mentioning of a different address in the affidavit, is neither willful nor wanton. 10. Be that as it may, pursuant to the Order passed by this court on 24.02.2021, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Rajamahendravaram, submitted a report to the Court in a sealed cover, which was opened on being called upon to do so. Along with the said report, two pen drives are enclosed which contain C.C. TV footage collected from the owner of the flat (K. Syamala) and the voice conversation between Mamidi Geetha and one alleged constable recorded by Mamidi Geetha in her cell phone, which was copied in the pen drive. 11. A perusal of the said report shows that on 25.02.2021 at about 2.30 p.m., the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Rajamahendravaram, visited Varun Karthik Apartment, where the detainees are alleged to have been detained. On knocking of the door, one lady opened the door and when asked her name, she disclosed her name as Mamidi Parvathi. After disclosing the identify and the purpose of her visit, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority entered into the said flat. On knocking of the door, one lady opened the door and when asked her name, she disclosed her name as Mamidi Parvathi. After disclosing the identify and the purpose of her visit, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority entered into the said flat. Two women and a male child were present in the Flat, who revealed their names as (1) Mamidi Parvathi, W/o. Pydithalli, aged about 49 years, (2) Mamidi Gayathri Geetha Amrutha, W/o. Thirupathi Rao, aged about 20 years, and a month’s baby (male child). Except the above persons, no other person was present in the said flat. 12. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced, it would be just and proper to extract few paragraphs from the report filed by the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, to show that the movements of the detainees are not restricted. 13. In fact, the report indicate that the inmates of the apartment, namely, Mamidi Geetha and Parvathi, were waiting for the arrival of the officials from District Legal Services Authority. 14. The statements of the inmates of the apartment, neighbour, watchman and the owner of the apartment, do not anywhere indicate restrictions in the movements of the inmates of the apartment. On the other hand, their own statements show that the Police wanted to apprehend Mamidi Thirupathi Rao, as he is involved in 39 cases covering four districts. Though a watch was kept over the apartment for few days after 25.10.2020, but the same was only to apprehend Thirupathi Rao. The statements of the alleged detainees no where indicate that the police, who kept a watch for few days and stayed in the apartment complex, caused any inconvenience, hardship or restricted their movements. The following paragraphs in the report would indicate the same. “Mamidi Geetha stated that her parents and sister used to visit her and used to provide provisions and other grocery items. They have no problem with regard to food. Even though watchman confirmed about the visit of parents of Mamidi Geetha. Further, Mamidi Geetha stated that her son’s health is not good and at that time female constable accompanied to the hospital. Except questioning her, whether there is any information about her husband, they did not harass them. They have no problem with regard to food. Even though watchman confirmed about the visit of parents of Mamidi Geetha. Further, Mamidi Geetha stated that her son’s health is not good and at that time female constable accompanied to the hospital. Except questioning her, whether there is any information about her husband, they did not harass them. Even the flat owner stated that police used to take Mamidi Geetha and her son for vaccination for hospital and used to get necessary items for them, so also watchman stated that, they used to bring milk packets and other necessities for the infant kid. When the house owner/ K. Syamala insisted Mamidi Geetha to vacate the house, the police persons suggested her not to vacate as she has given birth to a child recently. It shows that they used to provide necessary items as no male assistance is there for them. As per the statement of Mamidi Geetha it show that nobody obstructed her parents and sister when they used to come to their house and even her sister-in-law along with children came to see her. At that time they sought permission from the police to leave, initially they did not permit, later they allowed them to go. The mother of the petitioner stated that, her only grievance is to go to Sriharipluram, Visakhapatnam. I submit that by the time I went to the flat No. 202, Mamidi Parvathi and Geetha pleasantly opened the door and consistently they have informed as recorded in the statements without any hesitation. Further, Geetha has stated that the police has questioned about whereabouts of her husband. But she did not reveal as to what case is pending against her husband or any other aspects. The said Mamidi Geetha stated that police came to her flat questioning about her husband on 25th October 2020, whereas the house owner/K. Syamala stated that the incident has taken place on Dasara day) celebrated on 26th day of October 2020). The house owner stated that two or three days back Geetha came to her house stating that her mother-in-law has sent her to inform if any person came to her and asks about her husband to inform them that he is Supervisor.” 15. The house owner stated that two or three days back Geetha came to her house stating that her mother-in-law has sent her to inform if any person came to her and asks about her husband to inform them that he is Supervisor.” 15. From the above contents, it is very much clear that the police were making efforts to apprehend Thirupathi Rao, and they never caused inconvenience, hardship or restricted the movement of the alleged detainees. 16. When the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, questioned the owner of the apartment as to how the petitioner and others were inducted, she stated as under: “When questioned the flat owner as to how the petitioner’s brother and sister-in-law were inducted into the flat as tenants, she stated that the husband of Geetha came in police uniform and stated that he is S.I. of Police and his wife is pregnant, he needs a house. She has seen the name of petitioner’s brother as ‘Pavan Reddy, S.I. of Police’ on his badge. Brother of the petitioner/Mamidi Tirupathi Rao stated that they have stayed at his father-in-law’s house earlier, now they wanted to shift. Thereafter they occupied the house and along with them two more persons used to stay and informed to her that he is his brother. Even the watchman confirmed the same that S.I. of Police, husband of Geetha, and three other persons came to the apartment on three motor cycles, while taking flat no. 202 for rent. 17. A perusal of the statement of the watchman who is 75 years old, would reveal that one female police constable used to sleep in the flat in the night time, while two male constables used to stay with him in the downstairs during day time, but the said version is inconsistent with the statement of the flat owner. According to her, only for a period of five days there was some kind of surveillance, which was later decreased. On the other hand, one B. Arun Kumar, who stays opposite to flat No. 202, states that ‘he has no knowledge about the persons residing in flat No. 202. His information about the happening in the said flat was only through the watchman. According to him, he saw one male and female constable in the downstairs and that he came to know through them that one person committed theft’. 18. His information about the happening in the said flat was only through the watchman. According to him, he saw one male and female constable in the downstairs and that he came to know through them that one person committed theft’. 18. It would also be necessary to state that the inmates of the house have packed their luggage and were planning to vacate and leave the place. The relevant portion in the report is as under: “In the hall I have observed that two sofas were packed and when questioned as to why these sofas were packed, Mamidi Geetha stated that they thought of shifting from this flat to Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam city. Further she stated that since four weeks nobody came to upstairs. Only one person used to stand at the corner of the street. Some times two persons used to sit in the corner of the street. About two weeks back, her mother-in-law has asked constables who sat in the downstairs for shifting of flat. Then they questioned her as to ‘who are stopping, you can shift. Mamidi Getha has played the call recording conversation in the cell phone made between her with the constable seeking permission to shift from the flat, then he answered in reply that ‘who are obstructing them, they can do as per their will, they are only looking for her husband and why they are thinking that they are being obstructed.” 19. Though in the later part of the report, the inmates claimed to have stated that the S.I. of Police, Prakash Nagar Police Station, suggested the mother-in-law of the petitioner not to shift till 10th or 15th February but the same is contrary to the audio recordings heard by the Chairman, Legal Services Authority, which we have extracted above. A reading of the statements enclosed along with the report also shows the inconsistent version of the inmates of the house, the owner and the watchman. 20. It may not be necessary for us to deal with the issue at length, as a reading of the report would clearly show that inmates of the flat No. 202 are moving freely and no other persons are present in the cellar portion except the watchman and his wife as per the report. 20. It may not be necessary for us to deal with the issue at length, as a reading of the report would clearly show that inmates of the flat No. 202 are moving freely and no other persons are present in the cellar portion except the watchman and his wife as per the report. It would be appropriate to extract the same, which is as under: “Considering all the statements of Mamidi Geetha Parvathi, flat owner A. Syamala, K. Ramulu/watchman and also opposite flat owner, the surveillance was kept on the persons in the flat No. 202 and initially they stayed in the night time in the house for five days. From the statement of Geetha and Parvathi, no harm was caused to them. So by that time myself and Secretary of District Legal Services Authority, Rajamahendravaram visited the Varun Karthik Apartment, the atmosphere shows that they were not detained and earlier also there was free entry and exit of the visit of the parents of Mamidi Geetha. The statements of Geetha, Parvathi, Syamala/ flat owner reveals that the police has helped for getting the necessities and for taking the child for hospital. Finally the only grievance is that they should be sent to their place where Mamidi Parvathi and their family is residing at Sriharipuram, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. I further submit that Varun Karthik Apartment in the above said address is a newly constructed apartment, there is also no name board displaying the name of the apartment. The inmates in the flat bearing No. 202 are freely moving in the flat. There are no persons either at the opening door of the flat bearing No. 202 or rear side of the flat. I further submit that except watchman and his wife, there are no other persons present in the cellar of the apartment at the time of my visit. I further submit that there are two flats in the second floor and total eight flats in the said apartment. We have also observed the surrounding areas of the said apartments whether there are any persons keeping watch on the flat bearing no. 202 and we found that there are no such persons available in the said premises.” 21. I further submit that there are two flats in the second floor and total eight flats in the said apartment. We have also observed the surrounding areas of the said apartments whether there are any persons keeping watch on the flat bearing no. 202 and we found that there are no such persons available in the said premises.” 21. To sum up, it can be said that on 25.10.2020, on credible information that Mamidi Thirupathi Rao was in the Flat, the police obtained search warrant and searched the premises, but to no avail. In order to apprehend Mamidi Thirupathi Rao, a watch was kept over the apartment for few days. But nowhere in the statements or in the report it has been stated that the inmates of the flat were either detained or their movements were curtailed. In fact, the vigil over the apartment was only for a couple of days from 25.10.2020. Even assuming the statement of the alleged detainees is correct, namely that a lady constable was posted to keep a watch at the apartment during night time and two male constables were sitting with the watchman in the ground floor during day time, but the same was done only to apprehend a notorious criminal who stayed in the complex posing himself as S.I. of Police. In fact the statements of the inmates of the apartment show that when the child was not well, a lady constable accompanied the mother to the hospital for providing necessary treatment. 22. At this stage it is also to be noted that the version of the Petitioner that she escaped from the clutches of the police and went to Visakhapatnam also appears to be incorrect. If really the allegation is true, what prevented her to keep quiet for nearly two months without making any effort to ventilate her grievance by initiating appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. 23. At the end, Sri. N.H. Akbar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the inmates may be allowed to go to their native place. But from the statements of the witnesses itself, it is clear that there was no interference with their movements. Therefore, nothing prevents them from going to the place of their choice. For the aforesaid reason, we see no merit in the Writ Petition. 24. But from the statements of the witnesses itself, it is clear that there was no interference with their movements. Therefore, nothing prevents them from going to the place of their choice. For the aforesaid reason, we see no merit in the Writ Petition. 24. But, as a precaution, we observe that the police shall not interfere, in case the detainees intend to leave the said place, which shall be subject to any order, if passed by a competent and lawful authority restricting their movements. 25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed off. No order as to costs. 26. All the pending miscellaneous applications; if any, are closed.