Thippiri Gangadhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THIPPIRI GANGA D HAR, S/O THIPPIRI VENKATA NA R SAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS , OCCUPATION TODDY TAPPER, HOUSE NO. 5- 2-358, RATHAL A PAMPU, KORUTIA, DISTRI C T JAGTIAL, TELANGANA. PIN C ODE 505326.

¶11

SNEHALATHA MALLA,, W/O C. KASEEM, AGED A B OUT YEARS. OCCUPATION NIL, FLAT NO. 301, VAISH N AVI SMART APARTMENTS, HABSIGUDA, HYDERABAD, TEL A NGANA. PIN CODE- 500007.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, S ECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VEL A GAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MANG A LAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE ADDITION A L DIRECTOR GENERAL O F POLICE, INTELLIGENCE, S TATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, M ANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRIC T

¶17

THE SUPERINTE N DENT OF POLICE, ALLURI SIT H ARAMARAJU DISTRICT, PADER U

¶18

2

¶19

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.32433 of 2025

¶20

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

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 pleased to may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus declaring that the act of the Respondents in holding in detention of Thippiri Tirupati alias Devji, S/o Venkata Narasaiah and Malla Raji Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, alleged Central Committee Members of the CPI (Maoist) is unlawful and unconstitutional, and further direct the Respondents to forthwith produce the said detenues before this Honble Court and pass such

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.U D JAI BHIMA RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶27

3

¶28

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.32433 of 2025

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

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

¶31

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is filed for Writ of Habeas Corpus by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents-Police officials to produce the corpus by name Thippiri Tirupati alias Devji, S/o Venkata Narasaiah and Malla Raji Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy and then to pass appropriate orders according to law.

¶32

We have heard Mr. U.D.Jai Bhima Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T.Vishnu Teja, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶33

Petitioner No.1 is the brother of the 1^st corpus by name Thippiri Tirupati alias Devji and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the other corpus by name Malla Raji Reddy. It appears that both of them are Maoists and in the process of apprehending the Maoists, who entered the State of Andhra Pradesh in Vijayawada from the neighboring State of Chhattisgarh that an encounter between the police and the Maoists took place on 18.11.2025 in Alluri Sitarama Raju District. About 50 Maoists were arrested by the Police and others ran away and escaped. The arrested persons, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, are produced before the concerned Magistrate and they are remanded to judicial custody.

¶34

The grievance of the petitioners is that the two persons by name Thippiri Tirupati alias Devji and Malla Raji Reddy, who are members of the Central Committee, were also arrested by the Police in the said incident, but, they are not produced before any Court by following the procedure contemplated under law and they are illegally confined and detained by the Police. It is stated that respondent No.3-Additional Director General of Police,

¶35

4

¶36

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.32433 of 2025

¶37

Intelligence, has given a statement before the electronic media stating that some Maoists were taken into custody including the security persons of the Central Committee members of the Maoists group and the petitioners apprehend that the Devji and Raji Reddy are also taken into custody and their whereabouts are not known till now as they are not produced before any Court. Therefore, they sought the aforesaid relief in this writ petition.

¶38

When the writ petition came up for admission yesterday i.e., on 20.11.2025, learned Special Government Pleader, on written instructions, submitted that though they have arrested about 50 Maoists, all of them are produced before the concerned Magistrate and they are remanded to judicial custody. He, further, emphatically stated, on instructions, that Thippiri Tirupati alias Devji and Malla Raji Reddy were not arrested and they are not taken into custody by the Police and they are not at all in the custody of the Police at any point of time. He submits, as some of the Maoists ran away and escaped that these two persons also must have escaped. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.3 has given a statement before the social media and before TV9 relating to the said arrest of the Maoists and the encounter and he would produce the extract of the said statement given by him on the TV, which proves that the two persons in this case were also taken into custody and he requests time to produce the same. Accordingly, we have given time to him to produce the evidence that Devji and Raji Reddy were also arrested and are in the custody of the Police.

¶39

Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the statement given by respondent No.3 in TV9 in a pen drive. The pen drive contains the news relating to the said encounter and also the two statements given by respondent No.3-Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence. The said pen drive is displayed in the open Court with the help of the Technician of IT department of the High Court. We have, in the presence of both the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Government Pleader, watched

¶40

5

¶41

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.32433 of 2025

¶42

the same in the open Court. We have heard the statements given by respondent No.3 in the social media and we have also heard the news read out by the news reader of TV9. Even after meticulously observing the news and the statements of respondent No.3, it is evident that there is nothing to indicate from the statement given by respondent No.3 in the social media that the said two persons by name Devji and Raji Reddy were also arrested and taken into custody by them in the said incident. All that is stated by him is that about nine persons, who are the security personnel of the Central Committee members, were also taken into custody. But, it is not specifically stated whether the said Devji and Raji Reddy were also taken into custody or that they are in the custody of the Police.

¶43

As already noticed supra , the learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, clearly, emphatically and categorically denied that Devji and Raji Reddy were arrested and taken into custody in the said incident and that they are now in the Police custody. Therefore, in view of the said categorical denial of the said material fact that the Police have apprehended them and illegally detained or confined them, the burden is on the petitioners to atleast prima facie establish that they are illegally confined and detained by the Police so as to entertain this writ petition for Habeas Corpus. Inspite of providing an opportunity as requested by the petitioners, they could not produce any semblance of evidence atleast to prove that they are in illegal custody and detention of the Police. Except making a bald assertion in the pleadings in the writ petition that they got suspicion that Devji and Raji Reddy have been also captured by the Police, no specific statement is made in the pleadings that they are infact arrested and have been illegally detained by the Police. Therefore, in the pleadings of the writ petition also, the petitioners are not certain whether Devji and Raji Reddy were arrested and that they are detained illegally by the Police. Therefore, on mere suspicion or apprehension and without placing any proof to show that they are arrested and detained in custody, no direction as sought for by the petitioners to the respondents-

¶44

6

¶45

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.32433 of 2025

¶46

Police officials to produce them before the Court can be given. In fact, it is relevant to note at this stage that from the statement given by respondent No.3, which is now exhibited in the open Court, it is clear that some of the Maoists ran away and escaped. So, the possibility of these two persons also running away and escaping when the said encounter took place cannot completely be ruled out in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶47

Therefore, as the plea of the petitioners that the said Devji and Raji Reddy were arrested and are in illegal confinement and detention of the Police is not substantiated to the satisfaction of the Court, we find no merit in the present writ petition to entertain the same. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

¶48

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioners could produce any evidence that they are in illegal custody or detention of the Police or if any cause of action arises for them in future regarding any such illegal detention or confinement, the petitioners are at liberty to move the Court seeking redressal of their grievance. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶51

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶52

Date: 21.11.2025 MDP

Thippiri Gangadhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thippiri Gangadhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vs Sri B.Sankaraiah

The Union of India, Vs Sri. J.Sreenivasulu

Golusu Nanaji Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

V Devi Satya Sri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kandregula Siva Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pangi Ramesh Vs the State of Ap