IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ''ir TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE io \0 t PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8835 OF 2025 Between: Karri Satti Babu, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o.3-29, Sarada Nagar, Balighattam, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department A. P. Secretariat,Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Guntur Disrict. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District 4. The Superintendent OF Police, Nandyal, Nandyal District 5. The Station House Officer, Narsipatnam Town Police Station Anakapalli District 6. The Station House officer, Nandyal Polcie station, Nandyal Nandyal District. ...Respondents 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 to issue Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents, especially Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, to produce my brother karri Srinivas rao @ tadichetia Srinu, @ Karri Ramana babu, s/o Satyanarayana ( Late) aged 53 years, occupation business, R/o 3-29, Sarada nagar, Balighattam Narsipatnam mandal Anakapalii district before this Hon’ble Court from the illegal custody of respondents 5 and 6 and for consequential direction to set him be free and also for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with his personal liberty. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 respondents to produce my brother karri Srinivas @ tadichetia Srinu, @ Karri Ramana Babu, S/ Satyanarayana (Late) aged 53 years, occupation business, R/o 3-29, Sarada nagar, Balighattam Narsipatnam mandal Anakapaili district before this Hon’ble Court from the illegal custody of respondents 5 & 6 and set him be free, pending disposal of the main Writ petition. rao Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. rao Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. NANI BABU ROBBA Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following order: (r APHC010172362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8835/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Karri Satti Babu AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.NANI BABU ROBBA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following Order: (perHon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) The detenue in the present case has been arrested on 02.04.2025 in Crime No.25 of 2025, registered in Jaladurgam Police Station, Peapally Mandal, Nandyal District. The detenue was produced before the learned i it t 2 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dhone, who ordered release of the detenue subject to certain conditions. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire of arrest and release are not in accordance with law. He would further 2. process submit that the conditions attached to the order of release required to be set aside. The learned counsel would submit that a complaint had earlier been registered against the detenue in Crime No.44 of 2025 dated 24.02.2025 in Narsipatnam police station on the ground that the detenue had made certain statements against the holder of a public office. Subsequently, a fresh complaint has been filed in Crime No.25 of 2025, based on the same incident. He would submit that there cannot be two complaints and two crimes registered against one incident and consequently the second complaint is an est complaint. The learned counsel would submit that in such circumstances, the arrest of the detenue is itself illegal and requires to be set non aside. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner could very well be raised by challenging the registration of the complaint itself. This Court is of the opinion that the said challenge is beyond the scope of a writ of Habeas Corpus. 3. 1 k ^ r 3 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedies. No order as to costs. 5. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S N OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. Nani Babu Robba Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to The Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies GSC / / HIGH COURT DATED:08/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.8835 of 2025 5 08 *P*®*’* Outrtm I CLOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS