Allowed

Yarram Rajasekhara Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Jan 2022WP/3343/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the SHO, Chanda Nagar P.S., to follow Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and adhere to Arnesh Kumar guidelines before arresting the petitioner, amidst concerns of unauthorized police procedures regarding a bail/anticipatory arrest notice.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to Respondent No.2/SHO to follow procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and adhere to Arnesh Kumar guidelines prior to arrest.

Yarram Rajasekhara Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE,SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3343 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Yarram Rajasekhara Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy, Hindu, aged 46 years, Plot No.356, Road No.8, Kakatiya Hills, lVadhapur -500081

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. its P11. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The SHO, Chanda Nagar P.S., Ranga Reddy District

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent not to interfere with the Petitioners personal liberty without following the guidelines of the Judgment of Arinesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar.

¶15

lA NOr 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent not to interfere with my personal liberty pending disposal of the main writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. A. V. RATNAM

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A. MANOJ KUMAR, AGP FOR HOME FOR GP FOR HOME

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

I (

¶21

TH: HON.BLE DT, JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.3343 oF 2022

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Wr it Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seekin I Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 not to interf€re with the petitioner's personal liberty, without following the guidelines st )ulated in Arnesh Kumar v, State of Bihar and anotherl.

¶25

Heard^'he learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government^)leader for t-iome," appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and^per rsed the record.

¶26

Learne( counsel for the petitioner in the course of submissions brought to th: notice of this Court that on 19.01.2022 at about 6:00 PM, the petil ioner went to respondent No.2 police station on the pretext of n,,tice under Section 414 of Cr.P.C. The respondent No.2/police p'epared material papers relating to the notice under Section 41A cf Cr.P.C, signatures of the petitioner were obtained and later the said papers were torn on the direction of the higher officials and later the petitioner was issued notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and asking hi n to glve reply to the said notice on 20.01.2022, The petitioner was asked to appear before respondent No.2 on 20.0L.2022 at 10:00 AM. The said attitude of the respondent No,2/police is not appreciable ar d ultimately, prayed this Court to allow the Writ Petition, as prayed for.

¶27

Learne( Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that the petiti )ner is an accused in Crlme No,136 of 2020 or the file of Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered fcr the offence

¶28

I eln 20tq sc 27i i

¶29

¶30

punlshable under Section 420 l,P,C, In the course of submlssions,^{it is} brought to the notice of this Court that^{in the first instancethe subject} crime was registered under^{Section420 I.P.C andsubsequently} Sections 720-9,471and^{468 I.P.C.were added with the permissionof} the Iearned Magistrate concerned.

¶31

At this stage, learned counsel^{for the petitioner submittedthat} since the^{punishment prescribed for the offences alleged againstthe} petitioner is seven years and below seven^{years, a direction may be} issued to the respondent^{No.2/policeto issue noticeunder Section414} Cr.P.C. to the^petitioner by^{following the guidelinesstipulated in} Arnesh Kumar's case.

¶32

In view of the^{request made on behalfof the petltionerand the} punishment prescribed for the offences alleged^{againstthe petitioneris} seven^years and below^{sevenyears, respondentNo.2/StationHouse} Officer, Chanda Nagar^{Police Station,RangaReddy District, is directed} to follow the^{procedure laiddown under Section41A of Cr'P,C,, before} arresting the^petitioner and^{strictlyadhere to the guidelinesformulated} by the Honourable Apex^{Court in Arnesh Kumar'scase(supra).}

¶33

7, With the above observations^{and direction,this Writ Petitionis} disposed of. No costs

¶34

Miscellaneous Petitions,^1f any,^{pending in this Writ Petitionshall}

¶35

stand closed.

¶36

SD/.K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR t".,,tv //TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶37

To, Department,^{State of Telangana'Secretariat'}

¶38

1. The Prl.^{Secretary,Home} Hyderabad.

¶39

The SHO,^{Chanda Nagar P S} '^{Ranga Reddy District}

¶40

One^{CC to SRI S A V RATNAM' Advocate IOPUC]}

¶41

Two^{CCs to GPfor Home' High Courtfor the State of Telangana at Hyderabad} touTl

¶42

Two^{CD CoPies.}

¶43

One^SPareCoPY'

MP/ BS 1,

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510112C22

$
(
o (a't.
$"

ORDER

WP.No.3343 of 2022

DISPOSING OI THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COS TS

¶51

Yarram Rajasekhara Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yarram Rajasekhara Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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

Mr. Mohammed Abdul Hai Vs The State of Telangana

K Sirisha Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Jatla Shoba Vs The State of Telangana

Kodicherla Mahender Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Mr. Syed Mutaher Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

B.Mahesh Vs The State of Telangana