Manchineni Surendranath Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Manchineni Surendranath Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No writ of mandamus declared; petition disposed with directions only — Petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law; Investigating Officer to comply with Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law if an offence punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years is noticed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the third respondent and his police personnel in calling the petitioner to the police station and making him sit there without following due process of law is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, warranting a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent not to harass the petitioner by calling him to the police station. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court disposed of the writ petition without pronouncing the sought mandamus, requiring the Petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Ratio / Principle

This Court directed the Investigating Officer to comply with the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and with Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while leaving him at liberty to proceed in accordance with law if, in the course of investigation, the Petitioner is found to have committed an offence punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao — Writ Petition No. 11378/2026, decided 04.05.2026: Manchineni Surendranath (agriculturist, Palnadu district) petitioned for a writ of mandamus declaring illegal, as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the action of the Station House Officer, Amaravati Police Station, and his personnel in calling the petitioner to the police station without following due process, and seeking restraint on further such calls/harassment; respondents were the State of A.P. (Principal Secretary, Home), the Superintendent of Police, Narasaraopeta, and the SHO, Amaravati. The learned Assistant Government Pleader stated on written instructions that third parties' complaint had been registered as Cr.No.47/26 under Sections 118(2) and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and that investigation was in progress. The Court disposed of the writ petition, requiring the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, directed the Investigating Officer to comply with the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273) and with Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and left the Investigating Officer free to proceed in accordance with law should an offence punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years surface; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

APHC010225942026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3521]

MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 11378/2026

Between:

MANCHINENI SURENDRANATH, S/O JAGAN MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O D. NO. 1-189/1, DIDUGU VILLAGE AMARAVATI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARASARAOPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT.522601

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AMARAVATI POLICE STATION, AMARAVATI, PALNADU DISTRICT.522020

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR

2

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following: ORDER:

The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

“…to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent and his police personnel in calling the petitioner to the police station and making the petitioner to sit, without following the due process of law as illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioner by calling him to the police station…”

Heard the learned counsel for Petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader.

Mr. Kochiri Raja Shekar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner has been called to the Police Station without any basis and has been harassed by the Respondent Police.

Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that third parties have lodged a complaint against the Petitioner, which was registered as Cr.No.47/26 under Sections 118(2) and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’), and that investigation is in progress. It is in connection with the said investigation that the Petitioner was called to the Police Station.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, requiring the Petitioner to take appropriate steps in

3

accordance with law. The Investigating Officer is directed to comply with the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar¹ , and also with the provisions of Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’). If, in the course of investigation, it is noticed that the Petitioner has committed any offence punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Date: 04.05.2026 PRA

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273

4

147

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 11378 of 2026

Date: 04.05.2026 PRA