Shaik Rehana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE O F ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY IT S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, S E CRETARIAT BUILDINGS, V ELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522238.

¶15

THE DIRECT O R GENERAL OF POLICE, A.P ST A TE POLICE HEADQUART E RS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR D ISTRCT. - 522503.

¶16

THE SUPER I NTENDENT OF POLICE, SPS R NELLORE DISTRICT. - 5 2 4001.

¶17

THE STATIO N HOUSE OFFICER, II TOWN POLI C E STATION, NELLORE, S P SR NELLORE DISTRICT. 524001.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

2

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.MEDARA SIVA PRASAD

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

3

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶27

AND

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.9448 of 2026

¶30

O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

¶32

2. This writ petition for habeas corpus is filed alleging that the husband of the petitioner by name Mohamed Imran (hereinafter referred to as ‘corpus’) was whisked away by the 4^th respondent - Station House Officer of II Town Police Station, Nellore, on 07.04.2026 at about 2.00 p.m. from his house illegally without any crime being registered against him and that he was not produced before the concerned Magistrate also and he has been illegally detained by the 4^th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner sought direction to the 4^th respondent to produce the corpus before the Court and to set him at liberty.

¶33

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, on written instructions which are placed on record, submits that the 4^th respondent never whisked away the corpus from his house on 07.04.2026 at about 2.00 p.m. or on any other day and the said allegation made against the 4^th respondent is absolutely false. He would submit that in fact, the police of Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana State, have taken the corpus into their custody and they have informed the said fact to the police of Chinna Bazar Police Station of Nellore. Therefore, it is denied that the 4^th respondent has illegally detained the corpus.

¶34

4

¶35

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also, on instructions, submits that it is a fact that the Begumpet police have taken the corpus from his house on 07.04.2026, but they have taken the assistance of Chinna Bazar police to take him into custody and that the Begumpet police have subsequently set the corpus at liberty and directed him to appear before them again for enquiry whenever he is called.

¶36

5. Therefore, the fact that now remains established from the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, is that the 4^th respondent did not take the corpus into custody and he did not illegally detain him as alleged by the petitioner and it is the Begumpet police who have taken the corpus into custody. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even the Begumpet police have set the corpus at liberty and directed him to attend the police station for enquiry whenever he is required for enquiry.

¶37

6. Therefore, as it is now evident from the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the corpus is at liberty and he is not confined or illegally detained by the police, recording the said submission, the writ petition is closed. However, if the police interferes with the liberty of the corpus in future without following the due process of law, he is at liberty to move the Court for redressal of his grievance.

¶38

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶40

______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶41

Date: 09.04.2026 IBL

¶42

5

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶44

AND

¶45

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶46

WRIT PETITION No.9448 of 2026

¶47

Dt: 09.04.2026

¶48

IBL

Shaik Rehana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Rehana, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Subrahmanyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Palakurthi Manasa Vs Medapati Ramachandra Reddy

B. Bhavana, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Namala Radha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Lakshmi Narsimha Sarma, Vs The State of A.P.

The Special Deputy Collector Vs the Executive Engineer