✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 11 Feb 2025

Mettu Koti Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH N3 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
11 Feb 2025
Bench
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH N

Provisions considered

Judgment

1.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principle Secretary

6.

Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur district. The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh. The District Collector and Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam. The Station House officer, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam. Dhadi Shankara Rao, S/o Dhadi Gopala Naidu, R/o. 2-4H-4, EWS- 69,Sec-6, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in

the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the son of the petitioner named Mettu. Mohan Krishna Reddy abducted by the 6th respondent from the petitioner's rental house (own house of 6th respondent) situated in MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam, which is territorial O', jurisdiction of MVP police station on 25.01.2025, before this Hon'ble Court and^.. handover the custody return original certificates, passpprts. Cheques and promissory notes. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.6:— The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010053832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3488] (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 2858/2025 Between: Mettu Koti Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.METTACHENDRASEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following Order: The case of the petitioner is that his son had been illegally detained by the 6*'' respondent on 25.01.2025, and steps are not being taken by the police authorities to get his son released from such illegal detention. The detenue is presently before the Court. On being asked, he states that the 6'*^ respondent had detained him illegally on 25.01.2025 and he had come out of the said detention when he was permitted to go to the hospital where he was working. He states that he has not given any complaint in this P regard to the police. In view of the fact that the detenue is set at liberty, this Writ Petition i IS Closed leaving it open to the petitioner complaints before the police and they shall take action accordingly. or the detenue to necessary The detenue also states that his passport is still with the respondent, If that is so, necessary steps would be taken by the police authorities appropriate complaint being filed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. ! I To //TRUE COPY// SD/- V.SAVITHRI GOWRI ASSISTAN?" REG. SECT! OFFICER

1. The Principle Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur district.

2.

The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh.

3.

The District Collector and Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

4.

The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam.

5.

The Station House officer, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam. 6. One CC to Sri Metta Chendra Sekhar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CC’s to the Advocate General, High Court of A.P. Amaravati[OUT]

8.

Three CD Copies. <5 HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.2858 of 2025 0 7 MAR 2025 X ^ Current Secuon CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 11 Feb 2025. The bench was R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH N.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments