The High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the pctitioner and Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, [earned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. I. BRIEF FACTS

3. As can be seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner in supporl of the writ petition, the respondents opened a rovvdy shect against the petitioner on the ground that he was allegedl,y involr,ed in Crime No. 1 15 of 201 1 of Nekkonda Police Station, Warangal District for the offences under Sections i48, 307, 5O1, 506 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Crime No.13 of 2012 of Khanapur Police Station, Warangal District for the offences under Sections 147,148,307 read with Section 149 ol the Indian Penal 2 Code . According to the petitioner, he was falsely ir ,plicated and in the said cases and the opening of the rowdy st eet resulted in constant harassment, including display of his phot r y'aphs in police stations, frequent summons and prolonged question rg

4. It is further stated by the pctitioner that rr vrdy shee t u,as opened against him in the year 2Ol2 and has r,:en continued thereafter u,ithout any periodic review by the oll cials, which is contrary to the police standing orders. It is furtL r r stated by the petitioner that at tl're lime of opening the rowdy ; reet, only two cascs \r',,ere pcnding and that a rou,dy sheet canr r t bc opened or continued merely on the basis of pendency of two cr': rrinal cases. II. COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT No 4

5. In rcsponse to the above said averments made b,v the petitioner, the respondent No.4 filed a counter affirl lrit stating that the petitioner w'as involved in several cases i.e., ( rime No.115 of 20 I 1 of Nekkonda Police Station, Crime No.13/2t) .12 of Khanapur Police Station, Crime Nos.S of 2OOO, lO2 of 2000, . c)4 of 2000 and 74 of 2OO3 of Duggandi Police Station. It is state I '-hat in view of these cases, it became necessary to curb and r trrtaii unlawful activities of the petitioner. Thus, after obtaining ' ,ermission from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narsampet, \ /arar'tgal Rural District on 06.05.2012, a rowdy sheet was oper ed againsl the ,l 3 petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner has been facing trial in two cases and if rowdy sheet is closed, the petitioner will influence tl-re witnesses and may repeat the offences. Therefore, maintair-ring the rowdv sheet against the petitioner herein is essential to s,atch his activities. It is further stated that the respondents had never threatened, harassed and interfered with the Iife and libertl'of the petitioner by catling him to the police station and finally pral,ed to dismiss the u,rit petition. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES A)

6. PETITIONER'S SUBMISSIONS: Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the very foundation for opening the rowdy sheet has ceased to exist as most of the criminai cases earlier registered against the petitioner have culminated in acquittal or compromise. It is further stated that the petitioner has not been involved in any criminal activity for severzrl years and there is no material to suggest present deviant conduct. It is further urged that the bind-over proceedings initiated under Sectron 1O7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the years 2003 and 2018 have long expired and cannot furnish any justification for continued surveillance. The petitioner also asserts that the rorvdy sheet has remained in force for more than twelve years without any periodic review as mandated by the Police Standing Orders. According to thc petitioner, continuation of such surveillance, in the 4 absence of fresh material or recent incidents, ar roun[s to an arbitrary and disproportionatc intrusion into his r I ht to privacy and personal libr:rt5r under Articles 14 and 2l o[ thr: ( onstitution of Ind ia. Bl RESPONDENTS' SUBMISSIONS: 7 . On the other hzrnd, the learned Assistant Gove ^ r ment pleader for Home, sut;mits that although several of the t i rlier criminal cases have ended in acquittal or compromise, he bind-over proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sr:r: ion 107 of the Code of Criminirl Procedure are still pending anc have not yet reached finalit1,. [t is conlended that these prevent.c proceedings were initiated in vieu' of apprehensions expressed a L lhe reievant point of time rcgarding possible brcach of peacc il rC until such proc.eedings are formallv concluded, it u,ouid not be tppropriate to close the rowdv sheet. According to the respondenls, continuation of rowdy sheet is necessary to ensure that the petit oner does not indulge in conduct that may disturb public tranqr ility and that premature closure may u,eaken the preventi., mechanism contemplated under Section 107 of the Code of Crim j r etl procedure.

8. During the course of hearing, the lealr t:d Assistant Govcrnmen t Plcader lor Home, on instructions fi.r rn the Sub Inspector of Police, Dr-rggondi Police Station, Wa - u-rgal District, 5 submitted that the petitioner has been involved in the following criminal cases Sl. No Crime Number and Police Station 115 of 2011 of Nekkonda Police Slation Offencc under Sections 14, 307, 50 I, I lw. 506 149 of Seclion IPC 13 of 2Ol2 ot Khanapur Police Station t47, t48, 3O7 tlw. Section 149 of IPC Remarks Crime was numbered as S.C. No.419 of 2013, wherein the Petitioner was acquitted on 06.09.2021 Crime was numbered as S.C.No.237 of 2013, wherein the petitioner was acquitted ofl 16.03.2020 Case compromised 5 of 2000 of Duggondi Police Station 102 of 2000 of Duggondi Police Statron 104 of 2000 of Duggondi Police Station 74 of 2OO3 of Duggondi Police Station 131 of 2018 of Duggondi Police Station 75 of 2019 of Duggondi Polrce Station 324 r /w. 34 of IPC 148, t47, 341 r lw. l49 and Sec[ion 3 of PDPP Act 147, t48, 452, 352, 427,506 r/u,. 149 oflPC 108 of Cr.P.C The petitioner was acquitted on O3.O2.2OO4 The petitioner was acquitted on 03.O2.2OO4 Bind over 108 of Cr.P.C Bind over 324, r/w.34 of IPC 34t Case compromised at Lok Adalath on 10.02.2023 C.C.No.460 of 2019 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 6

9. From thc above tabular statement, it is reveir ( c that out of eight cases registercd againsr tite petitioner, only t ro bind over cases before the Mandal Reve nue Officer, Duggond i are pending against him anrl thc rcmaining si_x cases were r:it tcr ended in acquittal or resulted in compromise. Thus, admittcrl r, the said tu.o crimes i.e., Crimc No.115 of 2011 of Nekkonda potic,. I .rarion, Crime No.13 of 2Ol2 of Khanapur Police Station including I rimr: Nos.5 ol 2000, 102 of 2000, 104 ol 2000 arrd 74 of 2003 of t,,Lggandi police Station, based on which the rou,dy sheet was opcn( C against the petitioner, ended either in acquittal or compromisc. TV. POINT FOR DETERMINA TION 1 0. [n view of the pleadings and submissions, thc c r.ly point that arises for considcration is: . Whether continuation ol lhe rowdy shee against the petitioner, despite acquittal/closure / compromise <.1 most ol' the cases and without proper periodic review, is legal, j r stified and in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirr:rr ents? v A ANALYSIS Requireme nt ofperiodical review - ImDlicat i >ns of Article 21 of Constitution of India 1 1. The primary contention of the petitioner is tl-r I of the rowdy sheet mechanically over a decacl,: continuation rvit hout any periodical revier.r,, is in violation of his right to privar. and personal l Iiberty offending Article 21 of the Constilution of India. In Dilawar Singh v, Union Territory of J & K and othersl the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu held that maintaining of a history sheet/ rowdy sheet lor a long lime violates not only right to privacy under Article 21 but also other lundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. B. Rowdv sheet canuot be continued after acquittal

12. Out of eight criminal cases registered against the petitioner, six cases were clisposed of by acquittal or compromise. A rowdy sheet cannot bc sustained merely because cases were once registered, particularly rvhen such cases have resulted in acquittal. The essence of a rowdy sheet is contemporaneous criminal activiry demonstrating threat to public order. When the very basis on which the sheet was opened has ceased to exist, continuation become arbitrary. In Marri Gopi v. The State of Aadhra Pradesh and others2 the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh observed that there is absolutely no justification in continuing the rowdy sheet that u'as opened against the petitioner when the cases registered against the petitioncr were resulted in acquittal. ' MANU/JK/032sl2025 , MANU I LP I 0224 / 2022 1 8

13. Even the bind-over proceedings initiated unclcr jection 107 of the Code of Crimir-ral Proce dure in the ycars 2003 iirr I 20 1g cannot justifl, the continued maintenancc of the rorl,d], she :t against thc pctitroncr. Procccclings unde r Section 107 of the Crr l,: of Crirninal Procedure are prcvenLivc, time-bound to secure g..rI trcha'ior for a limited period. They cannot form the basi:,; f,tr perpetual surveillance. The Police Standing orders themscir,r s cortemplate that rvhere a ros,dy sheet is opened in connection r,- lt a bind _o,,,er order. its continuation must be reviewed immecliatclr. _ porr expirl o[ the bond period. The one year period prcscribcd in ,: ltnr:ction u,ith 2003 proceedings expired several years ago. Ther.t ir; neithcr any allegation of breach of the bond conditions nor i r \r subsequent conduct indicating Iikelihood of disturbance ol p,u[[i6 ps26s. Reliqnce on such exhausted proceedings to contir r-re the rovvdy sheet is impermissible. In Patti Eswara Reddy v. Slr Lperintendent of Police and others3 the High Court for the e:.s r ,r.hile State of Andhra Pradesh held that a person cannot be bran<I: Ias a habitual offcnder merely becausc he u,as implicated in turr,l.more cases, particularly u.hen no conviction rvas recorded arr, observed as under: "A Leanted sirryle Judge of this Court in Maltd lJ. ),1 ond. Anr. u. Home Secretary, Gout. of A.p. and Ors. 1997 (2) .\ ,.r 9A4 has considered the questtortvul,ith regard to the persons wht) ^. ut be, stated .r 1998 (4) ALT 284 9 to be habituallg cornrnitting crimes, refened to in Clause (1) (a) of P.S.O.742. It wqs heLd tlleretn tlrctt nerelg because two persons were figured as accused in respect of tlro cimes registered bg police, no inference can be dranun thctt theA are habttuttl offenders. In the itLstarlt cqse tlle petitiotLer ho.s tlot been corLuicted bg any Court in respect of anA of the cirnes thctt haue been registered against the petittorter. In tlle circunLstances, it has to be lrcLd that the petitioner cannot be regarded as q habitual offender under CLause (1) (a) of Police Startdirtg Order 742-

6. As regards persons bound ouer under Sections 106 ctnd 107 Cr.P.C. are concented, tt cannot be denied tltat a Rotudg Sheet tn respect o./such persons cart be opened under Poltce Standtng Order, 742 itl tenns of Clouse (1) (b) thereof. Lloweuer, the point for cons[deration is: Luhether once Grt Order [Jnder Section 1O7 Cr.P.C. is passed, whether such persons shqll conttnue tndefi.nttely on the Rowdg Sheet? In tlrc instent case, the peiod of one gear for uhich the petttioner uas bound ouer Under Section 107, Cr.P.C. elapsed in 1982 and for f.fteen years tlrcreall.er the petitioner is being conttnued. on the Rowdg sheet on the basis that he lLad been bound ouer {Jnder Section 107 Cr.P.C. I cannot accede to the contention of tlrc learned Gouenament Pleader for Home that the onl!) requirement und_er Clause (b) is that the person ls bound ouer Under Section 107 Cr.P.C. for maintatntng Roudg Sheet against him indef.rutelA. Clattse (b) enumerates one of the conditions for opening a Roudy Sheet but for continuqnce th.ereoJ, the pertod has to be reasonable and not arbttrary, muchless indef.nite. {Jnder Sectiort 107 C..P.C. the bond to be executed for keepirtg peace is for a peiod not exceeding one Ae@r- If there has been no uiolation or breach of the bond and a reasonable period hos elapsed, continuing such person on rowdg sheet tndefi.nitely would be unrectsonable. Perhaps, a pertod of tu-to gears after the expiry of the bond peiod as frxed lJnder Section 1O7 Cr.P.C. mag be considered reasonable for keeping a person on Roudg Sheet. 7. Conttnuing the petitioner on the Rolodg Sheet for a pertod of ouer fijteen gears after date of orders lJnder Section 107 Cr.P.C. is unreasonqble and uould be arb rary crnd is accordinglg so declared." l I 10 14 . There is no justilication to continue a rowdy sh r:t if all cases against a person have resulted in acquittal. It ; illegal and unconstitutional to keep a rowdy sheet open u'hc;t ',hcre are no pending criminal cases, as it violates fundamental r plhts and thc right to privacy. It is to be seen that rowdy shr: ts cannol bc opencd againsl any individual in a casual and mechl rical manner. Showing a person as a habitual offender and to oper a rorvdy sheet is not sufficient a.nd in fact, due care and caultort r trall be taken belore characterizing a person as a rowdy. The sigr i lcant elemenl that has to be seen in the acts of an offender is r,"he1 I ()r the acts so committed by a person will have a tendency to distu- r public peace and tranquility. In the instant case, there is no rt.i: L,lrial to shou, that the petitioner is responsible for disturbance cf peace and tranquility in the society. C. Continued surveillance must be strictlv iusti ied I 5. The legality of continued surveillance through a rorvdy sheet must be tested against constitutional guarantees ur cLer Article 14 and 2 1 of the Constrtution of lndia, which safc 3 rard personal liberty and the right to privacy. Preventive surveiLl: rce cannot be treated as a routine administrative measure; it mul; be supported by credible, contemporaneous material and must b<' :xcrcised with strict circumspection. This position has been clearl y errticulated by i ]l 1t this Court in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesha the Court enumerated the essential safeguards that police authorities must adhere to while maintaining history or sheets. The relevant observations arc as under: "49. Therefore, il the catltexl of police suruerLlance against htsLory sheeters arrd rowd.g slleeters, tle following pnnciples ws-a uis rigl'Lt to priuacV under Arttcle 2l of the Corlstilution would emerge' (t) If tlte suruetLlanrcrz ts tlot obtrusiue, tlle sqme does not wolate the right to piuacg under Article 21 of llrc Constitution of India. The sante does not either in matenaL or polpabte lonn affect the ight of the suspect to nnue freelg nor catl d be leld to depiue llle history sheeter / rowdg sheeter of his personal hbefly. (it In testing whether Jundatnetltal ngllt of free nrcvemertt or personal tiLteftg is ittffuryed or not, it rs fo be retrrcrrtbered that infirrymeri should be direct as tuelL as tartgible. lf suruerllance hurts personaL senslliyities, the sante is tlot o uiolotion, for the constitution makers neuer tntended to protect rnere persorral sensiliueness. (iii) IJ police surueillqnce is in accordcutce LL\th executiue/ deparlnlentaL guidelines ond not authorised bA statute or n es hauutg statutory force, it is for the State to proue that surueillance d.oes not in angwag infnnge the furudamental ight of the person and that the authoittes hatte followed the guidelirtes scrupuLouslg in ordeing surue lance, (iu) If the action of tlte police is fourtd to uyfntrge tlrc Jreedom.s guaranteed to the htstorA sheeter / roLudll slrceter arrd uiolates his ight to piuacA, in that, the surueill<tnce is excesstuely obtntsiue and tntntsiue, it tnaA seriouslA encroach on tlrc priuacg of a citizen as to tnfittge the fundamental ngltt to piuac!! and persona[ hbertg under Article 21 as well as the freedont of mouement guaranteed under ArttcLe 19(t)(d) of the CotLstitution of India and the sanre is tnlpennissibLe, (u) Even where there is statutory sanction for surueilLonce against history sheeter/ rowdg sheeter pinciple (iu) is equollg appticable, i,f the suru eilLsnce is o btnt siu e. (ui) In either case-whether police regulations are statutory or where theg haue no statutory force-tllere shoulcl be sufficient mateiat to induce the opinion that the history sheeters/ rowdg sheeters show a detennination to leqd a hfe of cime uhich inuoLues public peace or sec'uritV onLg, Mere conuictions in crlmiral cases where nothing r 2000(r) ALD (cRI) 1r7 I t2 impeils tht: safetg oJ tlrc socletg cannot be regarded (: Lt,orrange stLrueillanc<, under the reteuant regulations, hou.teuer bt r Ch1 tLnd irr uthateuer lQnquage the requlation might haue been coucl c.. (uii) hr etther cose Luhelher the regulolton is statutory ort,) -sletutory- domiciliary uistls otld prketing bt1 the poltce should be t(.- re.(i rc Le cleare.sl ca.ses of danger to cotrununitll secuitA, and tltr,,t t:ttn be no routire foLlout up at the end of a conuiction or release ;i ) r pnson tL euerg case (uiir) 7'1rc aboue pirtciples lhot enlerge frofit uartous binchn l ore onlq ge'rtcraL pi\ci1tlcs. As seen from uaious dec{detl : Cour1, opetrtrtcl of history sheel or rowdg sheet can be -1 , r|lrerr it is proued before lhe Courl bA the State tLlat t),. releuetlt mot".ial the conlpetent police offi.cer has oppli<,., due care anri corrsidered all aspects it1 the ligllt ol the l,L orclered oltcntng of history sheel or roudg sheet corttirutatiort or rete,ntion of the listotTj sheet. In the berlt't ,htdgntent, all tlrc releuont decrsrons of thts Court lnue I t lo ond tlltos. pt]Lc:fitles mag also haue to be kept in mi1d. 50. Therefora, on points I and III thot arise Jor considerat c be held thot nlatttenance of history sheet/ roudg sheet .ti t uioLales tL.Jl ollg igllt to pnuacg wder Article 21 ett,l ftndornental ights under Artictes I 4 and 19 of tlrc Cr. r ItLdia.' ,rec,,derlf.s .scs (f rhi-s ;tr,frcd ottlrl ;,zd tt llLc rntrvl Luttlt 't art,.i i:lu:rr r orclered t,tLg of tltis rt n'ferrecl = ?. il should c Lot ,.q tintc ( sa otlrct )lilulon ol

16. The principles laid down in Sunkara Satyanilayana's case (supra) make it abundantly clear that continuation of a rou,dy sheet cannot rest upon stale allegations, long-closed ,til ;()s, or vague apprehensions, but must be supported by cur., rrt behar.iour showing a live and proximate nexus with public ordt . D. Absence ofanv Dresent material

17. Signif-rcant 11,, lhere is also no material , tl record to substantiate tl'rar any victim has come forward to ;ive coml)lainr against the petitioner on account of threat frorn him. Except contending that that the petitioner is causing nuisar , €r tvith general public and due lo tris fcar, no body come fom al . to lodgo ant. I3 complaint against him, the respondents lailcd to explain the plausible reasons lor continuing rowdy sheet against the petitioner.

18. In Botnt Yadaiah us The State Of Telanganas lhis Court held that where no case is pending and no recent instance of unlawful activity is shor,".n, continuation of a rowdy sheet is improper. This Court observed as under: " 10. In the present case, as per the counler aflidautt, there are no cases pendirte aeainst the petitetLer os (\t date to rnaintaii the roLUdLt sheet or to keep surueiLLance on the actiuittes of lhe petitioner tn anu manner. Hou)euer, it is not the case of tle respottdetlts that the petiLioner is q habitual offerrder ortd lltere ts eueru possrbiLrtu of lhreat to tle public al larqe. FuftlLer, the respotLdetlts haue not qiuen anu specific irtstartce of the petitioner s vluolvenrcnl itL tlp cotntnission of offence subsequent to the closure/ ocquitlel of the cnrniial cases reglstered agaurst hin. 1 1 . In uiew of the aboue and inosrrutcLr cts ttr caterrct of cases, the Courls are consistentlu directinq tlrc poLrce to maitltain the rowdtt sheet as per the Standinq Orders of A.P. Pohce ManuqL this Courl is of the optnion that the action of the responderls poLice in maintaininq the rowdLl sheet aqainst the petitioner euen thouglt no case is pertdtng agatnst him cannot be sa[d to be proper." 1 9. It is pertinent to note [hat even if the offence is being habitually committed, or attempted to be committed or abet commission of the offence, but not involving a breach of the peace, l,",ould nol enable and authorize the police officer concerned to open rowdy sheet and classify a person as ro\('dy. It is in this area, a Police officer has to consider the material available on record and satisfy himself that commission of offence habitually by a person has resulted or is likely to result in breach of peace. The satisfaction is required to be arrived at in an obiective manner and on the basis w P.No.342l I of 2023 dccided on Ol 02.'2024 of the material available on record. [n the present cas( th(]re are no instances established by the respondents to estalr ish that thc pctitioner was responsible for committing breach , f peace and tranquility in the society. VI. CONCLUSION

20. [r'r vicu' ol ihc above discussion and consrdcrinr .-he principle laid dou,n in tht: above said decisions, this CoL rt is of the considcred vierv rhat continuation of rowdy sht:c I against thc pctitioner is unsusLainable and arbitrary. VII. RESULT: 2l. In thc result , Lhe rvrit petition is allorved and tl o rr:sponclent authorities arc directcd to forthwith close th,: ro$,<lv sheet maintained against [he petitioner. This order, horv: .r:r, shall not prcclude the respondcnts from taking approprit r: action in accordance u,ith lau, agairrst the petitioner, if there Ls rny 1'resh and sufficient material to establish that his movements ,r r: rcquirr:d to be prevented as bcing found indulged in any illegal a,: iirities. There shall be no order as to costs. As a seqr-rc[, thc misccllaneous petitions pendlrr ,, if any, shall stand closed SD/. N ASS 4 JAWAHAR REDDY I JTANT REGISTRAR ,? SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// T%n" t"il. copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAt\l \KRISHNA REDDY (For Her LordshiP's Kind Perusal)

1. 1 '1 L.R. CoPies 2 The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Mihistry of Law Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi ..-i_A_g -I aE-=-=;;'JEi1

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High Court Buildings, HYderabad. \

4. The Principal Secretary Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh' Secretariat, HYderabad.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Warangal Rural Warangal Dist ' - 6. The Additional Superintendent of Police,, Narsampet, Warangal District' 7. The Circle tnspector of Police' P.S.Khanapur, Warangal District' 8. The Circle lnspector of Police, P.S.Nekkonda, Warangal District g One CC to SRI A PRABHAKAR RAO Advocate IOPUCI 10. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court forthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 1 1 . Two CD CoPies TJ DAN BH I \ HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 ORDER WP.No.36878 of 2013 t t , I aH \ \ * \ Dc 1\ h/ \, .i't ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,!tp @