1. Salman Khan v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia 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 Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in opening and maintaining rowdy sheet against the Petitioners as illega!, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 (1) (e) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. Consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to close the rowdy sheet which has been maintaining against the Petitioners. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 Respondent No.4 not to insist for our presence irr the Police Station Santoshnagar, Hyderabad in connection with the rowdy sheet maintained against us pending disposal of the writ petition and pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KHALED BIN SAYEED, REP. FOR SRI MOHD MUZAFFER ULLAH KHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER iC\ t ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "...fo ,'ssue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in opening and maintaining rowdy sheef against us as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, 19(1)(e) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the respondent No.4 fo c/ose the rowdy sheef against us and to pass such other order or orders as fhls Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case ....,,

2. Heard Mr.Khaled Bin sayeed, learned counsel representing Mr.Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.4 opened rowdy sheet against the petitioner in 2022 in a Crime No.288 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 307 of IPC r/w.34 of IPC and the same is continuing till this date. However, the action of the respondents is contrary to the A.P Police Standing order, 601 and the judicial pronouncements of this Court. He further points out that in this situation, the police securing presence of the petitioner in the early mbrning and keeping him in the police station till late hours and this position is causing serious prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. 2 Thus, considering the above circumstanoes prays for direction to the respondents to close the rowdy sheet.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would fairly admit that only one criminal case i.e., S.C.No.795 of 2023 is pending against the petitioner. He further accepts that this Court on srmilar ground of pending one criminal case against the petitioners and running rowdy sheet has been deprecated and directed for removing rowdy sheet.

5. I have perused the materials on record

6. As per the respondents, rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner as he was involved in one crime. ln this context, as per Standing Order 601, it is clear that merely on tlre allegation of involvement of petitioner in a single crime, respondents are not empowered to open a rowdy sheet. lt is also a settled law that on the allegation of involvement of petitioner in a single crime he cannot be termed as a habitual offender.

7. ln the instant case, the stand of the respondents that only on the involvement of the petitioner in crime which is the ground for opening rowdy sheet. This factual position is evident that pending one crime, the rowdy sheet is being maintained against the petitioner, this Court in W.P.No.22980 of 2A2O and also in W.P.No.13158, 13019 and 13023 of 19 are reiterated. The legal position held in Sadath Ali Vs. The 3 I commissioner of Police, Hyderabadl, (Jmesh singhaniya vs.The commiss ioner of Police, Hyderabad2 have reiterated that the, t involvement of petitioner in single crime cannot be a basis for opening rowdy sheet. That being a factual position, this court is of the considered view that maintaining rowdy sheet against the petitioner is improper and against the regulations prescribed for maintaining such rowdy sheet and this petition is liable to be allowed and the respondents are directed to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioner on the file of P.S. Santhoshnagar forthwith. B. with the above direction, this writ Petition is allowed. No costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Principal Secretary For Home Department, of Telangana. SD/.A. JAYASREE STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER riat, Hyderabad, State

2. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Commissionerate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 4. The lnspector of Police, Police Station Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad. 5. One CC to SRI MOHD MUZAFFER ULLAH KHAN, Advocate IoPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies BSR BS ' Order in W.P.No.t9l94 of 2}l2,dated 24.08.2015 2 zotz (z) ALT 146 HIGH COURT DATED i2510812025 \ ORDER WP.No.46874 ot 2022 1 1 lr: 14 21ll0ll u u t a 11C ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 10 +