Allowed

Arke Santhosh v. State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC14 Dec 2021WP/21537/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the legality of renewing a suspect history sheet and imposing a close watch on the petitioner's activities despite his acquittal in previous cases. The court held the continuance unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner removed from suspect list; letter renewing history sheet and directing close watch set aside; no order as to costs.

Arke Santhosh Vs State of Telangana and 3 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

(SPecial Original^J urisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE^{FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTYONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶7

WRIT P TITIO NO: 215 70F2 1

¶8

Between:

¶9

Arke Santhosh,^{S/o. ArkeDurgaiah,Age{} .- Q3 ,^{y-ears'Occ LorryDriver'} iiiii. o.r.ro.^'oi-iri4, Madaram Towns6ip,^{Tandui, Asifabad' Telangana'}

¶10

,..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of^{Telangana,Rep by its PrincipalSecretary' Home Department' Secretariat'} Hyderabad.

¶13

Commissioner^{of Police, Ramagudem' Mancherial District' Adilabad}

¶14

Assistanl^{Commissioner of Police,Bellampalli' Mancherial District' Adilabad}

¶15

Sub- lnspector^{of Police,Madaram PoliceStation' T-andur' Bellampalli'Mancherial} District. Adilabad. "'RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under^{Article226 of the Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith' the HighCourt may be pleasedto issue} an appropriate^{Writ.Orderor Direction'more particularlyone in the nature of writ of} mandamus declaring^{the actionof the 4thRespondentin issuingletter vide C No'} 34lRgl2o1g^{dated.01.01 .2019 renewing the history sheetfor one more year and also} directing a^{closewatch on petitioner activitiesis illegal' arbitrary and violative of Article14'} 2loftheConstitutionoflndiaandconsequentlyi)directtheRespondentstoremove petitionername..ARKEsANTHosH"fromthesuspectlist.ii)Setasidetheletterissuedby the4thRespondentvideC.No.34/R3/2019dated'01.01.2019renewingthehistorysheetior one more^{year and also directeda close watchon activities iii) Not to summon me to the} police stations.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶18

Petition under Section^{'151CPC praying that in the circumstancesstatedin the} affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High Court maybe pleasedto suspendthe letter} ofthe4thRespondentVidec.No.34/R3/2019dated.01.0,1'2olgrenewingthehistorySheet for one more^{year and alsodirected a close watch on activities'}

¶19

CounseI fOT^{thE PEtitiONET:SRI. RAVI CHANDRA BEJJARAM}

¶20

Counsel for the^{Respondents:AGP FOR HOME}

¶21

The Court^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶22

l I

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VI]AYSEN REDDY

¶24

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.21537 of 2019

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home,

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing letter vide C.No.34lR3/2019 dated 01.01,2019 renewing the history sheet for one year and directing a close watch on his activities.

¶29

It is stated that in the year 2010, the petitioner was involved in a crime registered under Section 379 IPC before the lvladaram Police Station. Charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Asifabad vide CC.No.302 of 2010 and after trial, the petitioner and others were acquitted vide judgment dated 18.01.2011. In spite of acquittal of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 used to send constables and summon him to the police station on the premise that suspect sheet is opened against him.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the request made by the petitioner to remove his name from the suspect list was not considered. He further submitted that continuance of history sheet would attract only when the suspect is convicted. However, in the instant case, the petitioner is not convicted. He further submitted that this CoUTt in PULLA BHAKAR v. SUPERINTENDENT OF WARANGALI, held that once there is a long interval between involvement in different crime, such a person cannot be termed a habitual offender. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 26,08.20L9 to the respondent No.2 to close the history sheet, but there is no response. Hence, the writ petition is filed.

¶31

'^{1999 (4) ALT681}

¶32

¶33

In the counter affldavit filed by the respondent No.5, it^is stated

¶34

that the^petitioner was involved in the following cases:

¶35

Cr.No.60/2020 U/s. 379 IPC of Rebbena^Polrce Station, lulancherial Distrrct (erstwhile Adiiabad District). The case ended in acquittal on 18,01,2011 before the Hon'ble Judicral Nlagistrate of First Class, Asifabad,

¶36

Cr.No.42/2077 U/s 151 Cr.P.C. on the file of the respondent No,4. The^petitioner was bound over by the Executive Magistrate, Tandur on 2f .06.2017 vide MC.No,49l2017.

¶37

C(.No.44/2017 U/s.109 Cr.P.C. on the file of^respondent N0.4. The^petitioner was bound over by the Executive lvlaqistrate, Tandu r on 25.O7.20 17 vide^1,1C. No.⁵ 1/201^7.

¶38

Cr.No.6412018^tJls. 107 Cr.P.C. on the file of the respondent No.4. The^petitioner was bound over by the Executive Magistrate, Tandur on 11.09.2018^vide MC. No,74l2018.

¶39

Cr.No.1412019 U/s.107 cr.P.c. on the file of^respondent No.4. The petitioner was bound over by the Executive l4agistrate, Tandur on 26.O3,20L9 vide MC.No.2612019.

¶40

As seen from the above, the case at Sl.No.1 ended in acquittal. In cases at Sl.Nos.2 to 5, bound over orders were^passed,which expired long back. Hence, continuance of history sheet^{against the}

¶41

petitioner is unsusta in able,

¶42

The writ^petition is allowed. Pending mlscellaneous^petitlons,

¶43

if any, shall stand closed There shall be no order as to costs,

¶44

,TRUE COPYii

¶45

SD/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /' L-],D

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To,

¶48

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State^{of Telangana, SecretariatHyderabad} 2l%ommissioner of Police,^{Ramagudem, Mancherial District, Adilabad}

¶49

3-akAssistant Commissioner^{of Police,Bellampalli, I,4ancherialDistrict, Adilabad}

¶50

4].Sub- lnspector of Police,^{Madaram PoliceStation' Tandur' Bellampalli, Mancherial} District, Adilabad

¶51

One CC to SRl. RAVI^{CHANDRA BEJJARAtvtAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶52

Two CCs to AGP^FORHOME ,High^{Court forthe State of TelanganalOUTl}

¶53

Two CD Copies.

¶54

One Spare CoPY.

SW k

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411212021

24 FEA 2022

ORDER

WP.No.21537 ot 2019

ALLOWING THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS.

{,v ,r"^-.. @

Arke Santhosh v. State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arke Santhosh v. State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neelam Rathan Kumar , Chintu Vs The State of Telangana

Nenavath Narsimha Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

M.A. Razak Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Richa Holdings Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Mr. Raja Rao Mulkala Vs The Union of India

M/s. United Rail Road Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another