Dismissed

Vishal Singh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Feb 2022WP/5589/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged repeated police searches and harassment without issuing a Section 41A Cr.P.C. notice, contending it violated personal liberty. The High Court directed police to cease meddling with the petitioner's personal life due to lack of concrete suspicion.

What did the court decide?

Respondent police directed not to meddle with the petitioner's personal life and liberty.

Vishal Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisd iction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

rHE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶6

WRIT PETITION O: 5589 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Yplqt _9,f'gn,^S/o. .Mukesh.^{SinO[ Age.q about 28 years, Occ.pvt.Emptoyee, Fyo.} 14-10-128, Lower Dhoolpet, lmliyaBagh, Hyderabad -SOO 006.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secrelariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Officer lncharge / Deputy Commissioner of^police, The Commissioner,s Task Force, Begumpet, Hyderabail.

¶13

The Station House Officer, Manqalhat P.S.. Hvderabad

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Eicise. Namoallv. Hvderabad

¶15

The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Dhooipet, Jatl Hanuman, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone -^.lO-2-9, A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 457.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Atricle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that jn the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in repeatedly searching the house, directing surrender of the Petitioners without following due process of law, not even issuing Notice U/s.4'lA of Cr.P.C., or following Chapter V of NDPS Act 1985 which is mandatory, such actions amount to offending personal liberty guaranteed under Artjcle 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia affectlng right to life and personal liberty and opposed to law, the said actions may be declared as null and void, arbitrary, illegal and malafide

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying thal in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondents from summoning or arrest of the Petitioner herein without following due process of law, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.VENKAT RAO

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 6 : GP FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 & 5: GP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXICSE

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THt HON'BLE^{Dr. IUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER} w PE TITIO N^{No.5589oF 20 22}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Wri Petition,^{under Article226of the Constitution of} I nd ia, isfiledbythe)etitioner,whereinthefollowingprayerismade:

¶28

" .. to^{iss le an order, direction or writ' more particularly one i'r the} nature )f Writ of^{tuandamus'declaringthe action of the} Respond lnts in^{repeatedly searchingthe} ,^{house'--directing} auti"nai^{of the Petitionerswithoutfollowingdue processof law'} issuing Notice^{U/s'41Aof cr'Pc} '^{or following chapterV} iot oi t'lops "r", l.t^{1985 *rricn is mandatory, such actions amountto} iff"n-ajn,^{p"rio""l liberty guaranteed} -^{under Artlc]:,} -2]^{of the} Loittitu' oi^{or lndia affectrn!rrght to life andpersonal} ,liberty^and ,o law, the^{saidacti6nimaybe declaredas null andr'oid'} ilriiiao.v "pp.i"a^{irr"gui and malafide and pass suchother orders or orders}

¶29

2.Heardtl^elearnedcounselforthepetitioner,learnedAssistant Government^{P eaderfor Home appearingfor respondentNos lto 3} and 6,^{learnel Assistant GovernmentPleaderfor Prohibitionand} Excise appeari^{rg for respondent Nos'4 and5 and perusedthe record'}

¶30

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner wouldsubmit that without} there being^{co nmission of anyoFfence,unnecessarily'the petitioner} is being haras;ed^{by the respondent- policeThe petitioner is an} accused in^{Cri're No.389of 2O2O of ProhibitionandExciseStation'} Dhoolpet, Hydt^{rabad, registeredfor the offenceunder Section 8 (c)} read with 20(b^{(ii)(c)of the NDPS Act Thereafter' the petitioner did} notinVolVeincommissionofanyoffenceundertheprovisionsof NDPS Act. V ithout^{there being any materialor suspicion' the} petitioner and his^{familymembers are beingharassed by the} respondent-pol^{:e by visitingtheir house time and again'}

¶31

Learned Assistant^{Government Pleaderfor Prohibition and} Excise would^{sl bmitthat sincethe petitioner is an accusedin Crime} No.389 of^{2C20 of Prohibitionand ExciseStation'Dhoolpet'} Hyderabad,^{reg stered for the offence under Section 8 (c) read with}

¶32

¶33

20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, the activities of the petitioner are being continuously monitored by the excise police.

¶34

5, I As seen from the material placed on record and the submissions made, the petitioner was granted bail in the aforementioned crime No.389 0f 2020 or Proh ibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, on certain conditions, vide order, dated 08.02.202i, passed by this Court in Crt.p.No.531 of 2021. It is not the case of the responde nt- police that the petitioner has violated the bail conditions. The petitioner, on oath, specifically averred that the respondent-police are continuously visiting his house and harassing him. Admittedly, no criminal case is registered against the petitioner, subsequent to the registration of aforementioned crime.

¶35

6, In view of these facts and circumstances, without there being any concrete material suspecting the petitioner,s involvement in commission of cognizable offence, the respondent- police shall not meddle with his personal life and liberty in any manner whatsoever.

¶36

7, With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶37

I\4iscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition

¶38

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

¶40

SD/.T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ A---SECTION OFFICER To 'l . The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶41

The officer lncharge / Deputy commissioner of porice, The commissioner.s Task Force, Bequmpet, itvoerduao.

¶42

The Station House Officer, Mangathat p.S., Hvderabad 4. rne ueputy Commissioner, proh,ibition and Eicise, Nampally, Hyderabad 5. The Station House officer^prohibition ana eicisi,'Oiroor-p"il.tafi rf-inrran, Hyderabad.

¶43

Deputy.Commissioner Of^police West Zone 10-2-g, A.C Guards Masab Tank Hydearbad

¶44

One CC to Sri K.Venkat Rao. Advocate IOpuCl 8. Two CCs to Gp for Home. High Court foi the Sfate of Telangana at Hyderabad TOUTI

¶45

Two CCs to GP for^prohibition and Excise, Hjgh Court for the State of .-^{Telangana, Hyderabad(OUT)} 10.Two CD Copies 'l 1 . One Spare Copy Kj. "tq

¶46

HIGH COURT

¶47

DATED:10/0212022

¶48

, S,-,,O-<br>,,, - "i'"
,.j, 14 Hll2l?2
l,)
.1

¶49

ORDER

¶50

WP.No.5589 o'2022

¶51

DISPOSING O: THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COIiTS.

¶52

6trt,o* C-,{o--"^*^w

Vishal Singh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gonur Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Abdullah Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Sangi Shetty Butchi Babu and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 12 Others

The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs Punjab National Bank

Bandla Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telgangana and 8 Others

Mohd.Jahangir Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others