NARRA PAVAN KUMAR ALIAS PAVAN v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME

2.WRIT PETITION NO: 35729/2025 Between: NARRA SRINIVAS, S/O. VENKATA RATNAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YRS, R/O. PLOT NO. 73, FLAT NO. 101, DEVI ELITE BUILDING, SIDDARTHA NAGAR, YOUSUFGUDA, KHAIRTABAD, HYDERABAD - 500045 ...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT, DIST SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATIMANDAL, PIN.CODE522237. DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR HOME

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DT.PIN.CODE521001 3.

3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GHANTASALA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GHANTASALA POLICE STATION, GHANTASALA (V) (M), KRISHNA DISTRICT.PIN.CODE521133 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.35670, 35685 & 35729 of 2025 Dated 19.02.2026

3.WRIT PETITION NO: 35670/2025 Between: NARRA GANGADHAR RAO ALIAS GANGA, S/O. VENKATA RATNAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YRS, R/O. PLOT NO. 15/A F 3B, 3RD FLOOR JAINS AMRITA, VENGAL RAO NAGAR, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD - 500038. ...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT, DIST DEPARTMENT, MANDAL, GUNTUR HOME SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI PIN.CODE.522237.

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MACHIIIPATNAM, KRISHNA DT.PIN.CODE.521001

3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GHANTASALA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GHANTASALA POLICE STATION, GHANTASALA (V) AND (M), KRISHNA DISTRICT.PIN.CODE.521133 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.35670, 35685 & 35729 of 2025 Dated 19.02.2026 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These three Writ Petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order, as they pertain to the opening of a gang sheet against the petitioners vide proceedings dated C.No.65/DC/DCRB/2000 of the Superintendent of Police, Krishna, in Gang Numbers 3, 4 and 8 of 2020 of Gaddam Rajesh Kumar Gang Sheet, issued by respondent police.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

3. Incontrovertibly, the crime registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.62 of 2000 ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 02.09.2026 in C.C.No.405 of 2002 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda.

4. Indisputably, at present there are no cases pending against the petitioners.

5. Standing Order 544 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual enables respondent No.4 to open a Gang Sheet or history sheet under the orders of respondent No.2.

6. As per Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Order No.544. Gang file is maintained in the name of Gaddam Rajesh Kumar in the Ghantasala Police Station. 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.35670, 35685 & 35729 of 2025 Dated 19.02.2026

1. Gang cases can be put up against the persons who belong to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing Dacoity (U/s 400 IPC) and Theft or Robbery (U/s 401 IPC). The essential ingredients required are: a. That there was a gang of dacoits/thieves or robbers. b. That the accused belonged to that gang. c. That the said gang was associated for the purpose of habitually committing Dacoity/theft or Robbery. II. A person may belong to a gang of dacoits/thieves or robbers without having actually participated in the commission of even one Dacoity/Theft or Robbery. A clever member may always remain in the background while organizing the operations of the gang, giving active assistance for the purpose of meeting together, providing them with weapons, screening them after the commission of offence, helping them in the disposal of looted property. It is essential that professional receivers of Stolen property are brought on record u/s 411 IPC also 412, 413 IPC without any mercy. III. If a gang was formed for the purpose of habitually committing dacoities /thefts or robberies, all persons, who thereafter join the gang in one or more cases become ipso facto, the members of such gang. A person who joins a gang of habitual dacoits, thieves or robbers is a member of the gang irrespective of his actual participation in any dacoity/theft or robbery. It is to be proved that his associates are habitual dacoits/thieves or robbers. IV. A receiver of stolen property or a person harbouring a gang may not be held to belong to that gang Persons who associate with the gang for the purpose of friendship sake or join them in drinks at liquor shops or meet them in fairs, weddings or other social functions are not members of the gang. Servants and dependants of gangs are not members of the gang. V. Proof of participation in more than two dacoits/thefts or robberies, within a comparatively short space of time is necessary to prove the existence of a gang. It is sufficient to establish that a person belongs to a gang whose business is habitual commission of dacoity or theft or robbery. In a gang case, direct evidence of association of a particular accused with 6 Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.35670, 35685 & 35729 of 2025 Dated 19.02.2026 the gang may ordinarily be given only by an approver and other witnesses will speak of association on occasions immediately preceding commission of the offence. The association and purpose of association may be proved by direct evidence or by proof of facts from which they can reasonably be inferred. Evidence that the accused persons or groups of them had been concerned in a large number of dacoities or thefts or robberies within a comparatively short space of time, may be sufficient evidence of such association. Evidence which though not believed for the purpose of conviction under section 395 IPC may yet be relied upon for the purpose of proving the charge U/s 400 IPC. The purpose of habitually committing dacoity or theft or robbery may be proved by their declaration or by their conduct. The only relevant evidence here consists of their conduct in having participated in different dacoities or thefts or robberies. The principal evidence adduced by the prosecution falls under the following heads: - A) The evidence of approver narrating how the members of the gang conspired and assembled for each dacoity / theft or robbery and committed it and divided the booty. B). That of the evidence of victims of each dacoity/theft or robbery and of direct witnesses, identifying accused in Court at the Test Identification Parades. C. That of recovery of properties lost at the dacoity /theft or robbery from the possession of the various accused and D. That of previous convictions of some of the accused. VI. The consent of State Government U/s 300(2) of Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute the accused in a gang case if he is acquitted or convicted in any dacoity/theft or robbery.

7. On careful perusal of the Standing Orders, the respondent cannot open or continue a Gang Sheet against the petitioners, inasmuch as the petitioners do not fit into any of the conditions enumerated in the said Standing Orders. The petitioners have not committed any offence mentioned in the Standing 7 Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.35670, 35685 & 35729 of 2025 Dated 19.02.2026 Orders. A case in Crime No.62 of 2000 was registered, and the same was ended in acquittal before the learned Trial Court.

8. In pari materia, this Court in Tadiboyina Peraiah @ Mahesh v. State of A.P 1 held that when no crimes are pending against a person and no material is produced to demonstrate threat to public peace, continuation of a gang sheet/rowdy sheet under Standing Order No. 544 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders is impermissible.

9. Similarly, in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, a Coordinate Bench categorically observed that gang sheet/rowdy sheet cannot be opened in a casual or mechanical manner. Mere dubbing of an individual as a habitual offender is insufficient. The Police must exercise due care and caution before branding a person as a rowdy, and the essential consideration is whether the acts of such person have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility.

10. A careful reading of these precedents clearly indicates that the creation or continuation of gang sheet/rowdy sheet requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards and regular review by the statutorily designated authorities. The Respondents are duty-bound to examine whether the alleged misconduct genuinely affects public peace. In the present cases, the Petitioners were acquitted in Crime No.62 of 2000 before the learned Trial Court. In such circumstances, the continuation of the impugned gang sheet 12021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161 22000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP) 8 Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.35670, 35685 & 35729 of 2025 Dated 19.02.2026 amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and constitutes an abuse of process.

11. For the foregoing reasons, these three Writ Petitions are disposed of, declaring that the continuation of the impugned gang sheet against the Petitioners is illegal. The Respondent authorities are directed to forthwith close the said gang sheet opened against the petitioners. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 19.02.2026 RSI 9 Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.35670, 35685 & 35729 of 2025 Dated 19.02.2026 203 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NOs: 35670, 35685 and 35729 of 2025 Date: 19.02.2026 RSI