Disposed

Durgam Sammaiah v. the Registrar General

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026WP/26181/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to release accused persons who remained in jail for two months after bail was granted due to delay in verifying sureties. Respondents submitted that release orders were issued on 12.09.2026. The petitioner did not dispute this, rendering the petition infructuous.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition disposed of as infructuous after release orders were issued.

Durgam Sammaiah Vs the Registrar General — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010467452026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-14 [3584] AT AMARAVATI

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO: 26181 of 2026

Durgam Sammaiah

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Registrar General and others ...Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶10

DATE : 17^th September, 2026

¶11

Present :

¶12

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr G Kumar Yaddlapalli Advocate for Respondent(s) : Ms A Jayanthi

¶13

LISA GILL, CJ:

¶14

Prayer in this writ petition reads as under:

¶15

“..to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to forthwith release the accused A.1 to A.3 for the delay caused in their release after an inquiry into the fitness of the sureties ordered by an Official Memorandum dt.14-072026 of the 1^st A.D.J, Rajamahendravaram which was pleased to grant bail in Crl.M.P.Nos.753 & 756 of 2026 dt.8-7-2026 & 9-7-2026 respectively in connection with Cr.No.6 of 2026 of Donkarai police station are still withheld after the solvencies being certified as genuine by the concerned by the M.P.D.O, Kataram mandal, Telangana State dt.25-7-2026 and further incarceration under the premise of verification of solvencies may be held as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the spirit of Article 21 & 14 of the Constitution of India as inordinate delay of 2 months in accepting the sureties of the petitioner effected the Life and Liberty guaranteed to the accused languishing in jail and pass such other order..”

¶16

¶17

HCJ & CGR, J WP_26181_2026

¶18

Learned counsel for respondents submits that necessary action in

¶19

this regard has been taken and release orders were issued on 12.09.2026. It is further submitted that besides the peculiar circumstance that Presiding Officer had been unwell and had ultimately passed away, bail petitions had

¶20

been filed by one counsel whereas sureties were submitted by another counsel without accompanying no objection certificate of the previous counsel. Same were sent for verification; a third counsel filed memo of appearance with an endorsement of no objection from second counsel. It is submitted that present writ petition is rendered infructuous.

¶21

Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to deny that as of now present petition is rendered infructuous.

¶22

Ordered accordingly. No costs.

¶23

Pending application(s) if any stand(s) disposed of accordingly.

¶24

LISA GILL, CJ

¶25

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

¶26

Vjl

¶27

Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes / No Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No

Durgam Sammaiah v. the Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgam Sammaiah v. the Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases