Disposed¶38

Shaik Nageena v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Nov 2025WP/32044/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas Corpus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Article 21; illegal detention; police custody; SHO Pattabhipuram Police Station; Guntur; Mohammad Abdul Raheem @ Munna; crime registration 05.11.2025; arrest 17.11.2025; remand; Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Prohibition and Excise Court Guntur; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Ss.324(4), 329(4), 217, 240, 248(a), 61 r/w 3(5); Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Ss.3(1)(2)(va); D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416; bail liberty; writ petition closed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

It cannot be said that the corpus has been illegally detained or confined by the 4th respondent. ¶37

Shaik Nageena Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention of the petitioner's husband Mohammad Abdul Raheem (corpus) in police custody by respondent No.4 was illegal and arbitrary, warranting a declaration of illegality and directions for his production and release.

¶31

Court's answer

It cannot be said that the corpus has been illegally detained or confined by the 4th respondent.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

As a crime was registered against the corpus and he was arrested in connection with the said crime, the law has to take its own course.

¶37

Key takeaways

The corpus is at liberty to move the Court seeking bail, which is to be considered and decided by the concerned Court according to law.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the wife (Shaik Nageena) alleging illegal and arbitrary detention of her husband Mohammad Abdul Raheem @ Munna by respondent No.4, the SHO, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur, since 13.11.2025, in violation of Article 21, seeking his production, independent medical examination per the guidelines in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, and release. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that a crime was registered against the corpus on the report of P.Srinivasa Rao dated 05.11.2025 at Pattabhipuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 324(4), 329(4), 217, 240, 248(a), 61 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1) (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; that the corpus was arrested in connection with the said crime on 17.11.2025 and produced before the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prohibition and Excise Court, Guntur, seeking remand to judicial custody. Held (per Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy): it cannot be said that the corpus was illegally detained or confined by the 4th respondent; a crime having been registered and arrest effected, the law has to take its own course; the corpus is at liberty to move the concerned Court for bail, to be decided according to law. Writ petition closed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

¶2

APHC010620232025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3558]

¶5

MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 32044/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

SHAIK NAGEENA, W/O. MOHAMMAD ABDUL RAHEEM, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.124-1-36, SUNDARAIAH COLONY, 1ST LINE, ADAVITAKKALLAPADU, SWARNABHARATHI NAGAR, VTC GUNTUR, AP - 522006.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

¶17

THE SHO PATTABHIPURAM POLICE STATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

pleased topleased to A. Issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action and aforesaid detention of petitioners husband namely Mohammad Abdul Raheem @ Munna, by the 4th respondent as illegally, arbitrary, and in gross violation of the detenu's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including his right to life, personal liberty.,. B. Direct the Respondents to forthwith produce the detenu, Mohammad Abdul Raheem @ Munna, before this Hon'ble Court and to show cause why he has been illegally and unauthorizedly detained by the personnel of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur (Respondent No. 4), since 13th November 2025, without any lawful authority, intimation, or adherence to procedure established by law. C. And to arrange for his immediate medical examination by an independent medical practitioner at a government hospital to document any injuries sustained, in compliance with the guidelines in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416. D. And set him free and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 pleased to grant Interim direction, directing the Respondent no. 4 to produce the petitioner’s husband namely Mohammad Abdul Raheem before this Hon’ble Court and set him free and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.KAMIREDDY DIVYA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶28

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶31

This writ petition for Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed to declare the action of the respondent-police officials in illegally detaining a person by name Mohammad Abdul Raheem (hereinafter referred to as “corpus”) in police custody by respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently sought direction to the respondentpolice officials to forthwith release the corpus and set him at liberty.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General, who has taken notice for respondents 1 to 4 and appeared on their behalf.

¶33

Precisely, it is the case of the petitioner that her husband by name Mohammad Abdul Raheem has been illegally taken into custody by respondent No.4, who is the Station House Officer of Pattabhipuram Police Station of Guntur District on 13.11.2025 evening and since then, his whereabouts are not known and thereby sought the aforesaid relief in this writ petition.

¶34

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that a crime was registered against the corpus by name Mohammad Abdul Raheem on the report lodged by a person by name P.Srinivasa Rao on 05.11.2025 in Pattabhipuram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324(4), 329(4), 217, 240, 248(a), 61 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1) (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and he further submits that he was arrested in connection with the said crime today morning i.e. on 17.11.2025 and that he is being produced before the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prohibition and Excise

¶35

¶36

Court, Guntur, today seeking his remand in judicial custody. Therefore, he would submit that the corpus was not illegally confined or detained by the 4^th respondent as alleged by the petitioner and he was arrested only in connection with the said crime that was registered against him and the further legal process is being followed after his arrest.

¶37

In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the corpus has been illegally detained or confined by the 4^th respondent. As a crime was registered against him and as he was arrested in connection with the said crime, the law has to take its own course. However, the corpus is at liberty to move the Court seeking bail which is to be considered by the concerned Court to be decided according to law.

¶38

Recording the aforesaid submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is closed, leaving it open to the corpus to seek bail in the concerned Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶40

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶41

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶42

Date: 17.11.2025

¶43

Note: Issue CC today (B/o) ARR

¶44

¶45