High Court · 2025

Judgment

5. The Station House Officer, Mellacheruvu Police Station, Nalgonda District. The Inspector of Police, Kodad, Nalgonda, District. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. The Superintendent of Police, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court rnay be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the respondents in continuing the rowdy sheet since the year 2001 against the petitioner in the 1st respondent police station by extending every year without recording any reasons even in spite of not involvement in ahy cade foi the- pa6f 15 years aS bib-itiary, illelrel -and- - consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner pending before the 1st respondent police station in the interest of justice. , -.i l:.,.* P OF petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to summon the petitioner to the police station on the ground that pendency of the rowdy sheet: for purpose of surveillance of the movements o1'the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for tlne Petitioner : SRI P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for tlhe Respondents: ASST. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER / ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION .35834 0F 2016 This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "Io issue writ, order or direction, more pafticularly one in the nature of WR\T OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of respondents in continuing the rowdy sheef sitrce the year 2001 against the petitioner in the l"t respondent police station by extending every year without recording any reasons even inspite of no involvement in any case for the past 15 years, as arbitrary, iltegal and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheef against the petitioner pending before the 1"t respondent police station..... -..."

2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the rowdy sheet against the petitioner was initially opened in the year 2001, subsequently closed in 2004, and later reopened on 01.05.2009 in Crime No.163 of 2008 under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said case was registered in connection with the donation of Ac.0.02 guntas of land to the Muslim community, during which the petitioner and his group were alleged to have been involved in an affray. Consequently, 2 the sus.pecUrowdy sheet was reopened and continued on the ground that the petitioner was likely to be involved in acts detrimental to public peace and tranquility.

3.2. lt is further submitted that, in the year 2016, Crime No.292 of 201 6 was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, and 307 read with Section 149 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. He further submits that while Crime No.163 of 2008 has since been closed, proceedings in Crime No.292 of 2016 are pending trial, and since the petitioner is involved in an offence ol attempt to murder, the police authoril:ies have deemed it necessary to continue the suspecUrowdy sheet against him.

4. I have perused the material available on record.

5. ftdmittedly, the petitioner was involved in Crime No.l63 of 2008 at the time of reopening of the suspecUrowdy sheet in 2009, which was a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.p-C: Such proceedings, being preventive in nature, ordinarily culminate within ;r year upon execution or expiry of a bond for keeping the 3 peace. Therefore, by 2010, there remained no crime pending against the petitioner

6. Beyond the police assertion that the petitioner is "likely to be involved in breach of peace and public tranquility," no tangible or substantive material has been produced to substantiate even a reasonable apprehension of such likelihood. No record has been placed before this Court to demonstrate any overt act or conduct by the petitioner that would justify the continuance of surveillance. Consequently, the observation of the respondent authorities in the counter affidavit that a "close watch" on the petitioner's activities is necessary is found to be without any factual or legal basis.

7. As per Standing Order 601-A of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, a suspect or rowdy sheet may be opened and continued only upon satisfaction of specific criteria, namely, that the individual is habitually involved in at least two criminal cases or that their conduct poses a persistent threat to public peace and tranquility. The purpose of such surveillance is preventive, not punitive. lt cannot be invoked merely on conjecture or on the pendency of an isolated criminal case. l f ! 4

8. lrr the present case, except for the general observation that the petitioner is "likely to be involved" in such acts, there is no evidenc:e of any offence registered or pending against him between 2010 and 2016. Even the 2016 case, registered under Sections 147, 148, 324, and 307 lPC, remaans pending trial and cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient material to justify continued surveill;rnce under a suspecUrowdy sheet. The respondents have not dernonstrated how the pendency of that case satisfies the conditions laid down in Standing Order 601-A.

9. lrr these circumstances, this Court finds that the continuance of the suspecVrowdy sheet against the petitioner is not supported by any material evidence, fails to satisfy the procedural safeguards prescribed under Standing Order 601-A of the A.P. Police Manual, and stands contrary to the principles enunci;rted by the Hon'ble High Courts in cases such as K. Suresli Babu v. Sfafe of Telangana,2021 SCC Online TS 462, and Pt,ttagunta Purnachandra Rao v. Sfafe of A.P., 2008 (2) ALD (Cri) 208 (AP), wherein it was held that mere apprehension withoul: concrete material cannot justify the opening or continuation of a rowdy sheet. 5

10. Accordingly, the action of the respondent Police authorities in continuing the suspecUrowdy sheet against the petitioner is found to be arbitrary, without justification, and contrary to law

11. ln the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith close the suspecUrowdy sheet maintained against the petitioner. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition, shall sla.td -clpssd,. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' WitNESS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH' ON thiS Friaiy, The Tenth Day Of October Two Thousand And Twenty Five ,-- - ,/TRUE COPY// SD/. .MALLIKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REG SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Station House Officer, Mellabheruvu Police 2. The lnspector of Police, Kodad, Nalgonda, District. 3. The sub Divisional Police officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 4. The superintendent of Police, suryapet, Nalgonda District. 5. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Telangana State, Nalgonda District. Hyderabad

6. One CC to SRI P.NAGENDRA REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR HOtVlE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.IOUTI 8. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP c I 1 () * 2 1 F[8 zl,l7fi * HIGH COURT DATED:10/1 012025 ORDER WP.No.35834 of 2016 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS JKs e [=1"-e .