Golla Geethamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

GOLLA GEETHAMMA,, W/O BOMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.2-87, BC COLONY, KOTAGUDDAM VILLAGE, VONTAREDDYPALLI POST, KAMBADUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-515765.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, ANANTHAPURAM-515001.

¶14

THE SHO, ANANTHAPURAM RURAL POLICE STATION, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 515001.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 tomay be pleased to issue WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS under Article-226 of Constitution of India directing the Respondents 2 and 3 to produce my son by name Golla Jeevan, S/o Golla Bommaiah, Aged about 24 years (Aadhaar No. 7079 9862 9505), who is now in illegal detention of Respondents 2 and 3 before the Honble Court and he may be ordered to be

¶17

2

¶18

released forthwith/set at liberty by declaring his detention by the Respondents 2and 3 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against law and principles of natural justice and violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India and pass such

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.N V MOHANA RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

3

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 5006/2026

¶29

ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶30

This writ petition for Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 – police officials to produce the corpus by name Golla Jeevan before this Court, who is said to have been illegally detained by respondent Nos.2 and 3 – police officials and then set him at liberty.

¶31

2. Heard Sri N.V.Mohana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the official respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶32

3. When the writ petition came up for admission before this Court on 19.02.2026, the learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, on written instructions which are placed on record has submitted that the corpus was not illegally detained or confined by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted on that day that the police have illegally confined the corpus for the last 8 days from 10.02.2026 and thereafter, set him at liberty and that the police have harassed the corpus, subjecting him to third-degree methods. Therefore, in view of the said submissions made by the learned counsel, to ascertain the

¶33

truth, we have directed respondent No.3 – Station House Officer of

¶34

4

¶35

Ananthapuram Rural Police Station to produce the corpus before the Court today. Pursuant to the said direction, the corpus is produced before this Court today.

¶36

4. When he is questioned in the open Court, he has stated that he was not taken away by police on 10.02.2026 and he was not illegally detained or confined by them and he was not subjected to any physical harassment by using third- degree methods. On the other hand, he has stated that as he is indebted to many people that unable to bear the pressure exerted by them to discharge the loan amounts that he went away from his house and absconding and thereafter on the report lodged by the writ petitioner, who is his mother before the police that he was traced by the police and thereafter, he was produced before the Court today. He has stated in answering the question of the Court, whether he was harassed by the police by subjecting him to third-degree methods, he clearly and unequivocally stated that he was not harassed by the police and no third-degree methods are used against him.

¶37

5. Therefore, it is obvious and evident from the statement given by him in the open Court that he was not whisked away by the police as alleged by the writ petitioner and he was not illegally confined or detained by the police and he was not subjected to any harassment. Therefore, the writ petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. From the aforesaid statement given by the corpus voluntarily, it is also evident that a frivolous writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner with false allegations. So, we deprecate the said conduct of the writ petitioner in filing false and frivolous writ petition wasting

¶38

5

¶39

the time of the Court and time of the police who were called to the Court to produce the corpus. This Court warns the writ petitioner not to resort to any such acts of initiating frivolous litigations before the Court on false grounds and allegations. In fact, this Court is of the view that the writ petition has to be dismissed with heavy costs. But considering the fact that the writ petitioner is only a home maker, we are leaving her with the aforesaid warning.

¶40

6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

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

¶42

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶43

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶44

Date: 26.02.2026 KA

¶45

6