•vj. APHC010398202024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20411 OF 2024 Between; Boddapu Prasad, S/o. Appala Naidu, Aged about 35 years, Occ; Agriculture, Sontyam Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, AP Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi, District. 2. The Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh DGP Office, Amaravati, Guntur District 3. The Commisisoner of Police, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam District- 530001 4. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Suryabagh Visakhapatnam 530001 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madhurawad, Sub-Division, Visakahapatnam City. 6. Sub-Inspector of Police, Anandapuram Police Station Visakhapantam District. Guntur District- ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents i praying that in the may be one r in opening a rowdy sheet against me vide C.No.04/History Sheet/ACP- MWD/2015, Dated 24-02- 2015 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, null and void and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the part-1 (Vol- II) and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against me. standing Order Nos. 600, 601,602 and 742 of AP Police Manual lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to call the Petitioner to the Police Station in of the connection with History/Rowdy-sheet opened vide Proceedings History/rowdy-sheet opened against the Petitioner Anandapuram Police Station which vide Proceedings of come under Visakhapatnam was Commissioneate, Commissioner Police District, C.No.04/History Sheet/ACP-MWD/2015 to interfere in their Right to life and Personal Liberty. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam Dated 24-02-2015 and not Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI REDDY VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: APHC010398202024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20411/2024 Between; 1.BODDAPU PRASAD, S/0. APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, SONTYAM VILLAGE, ANANDAPURAMMANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. DEPARTMENT OF HOME, AP SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH DGP OFFICE, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT POLICE, OF COMMISISONER 3.THE SURYABAGH,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-530001 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SURYABAGH VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-530001 5.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MADHURAWAD, SUB-DIVISION, VISAKAHAPATNAM CITY. 6.SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANANDAPURAM POLICE STATION VISAKHAPANTAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in opening a rowdy sheet f.^ \ WP.No.20411 of 2024 N against me vide C.No.04/History Sheet/ACP-MWD/2015, Dated 24-02- Artides 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the fVol lit and o' f'P Police Manual parW Ihej inenad fo®P°o4ents to close the rLdy sheet opened against me and pass ^ lA NO: 1 OF 9()9A stated!'thraffidlfn d " "f"'oircumstances d pff"favit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may to the Polle !af **'® Respondents not to call the Petitioner o the Police Station in connection with History/Rowdy-sheet ooened Vide Proceedings of the Histo^/rowdy-sheeT opened against "te elitioner vide Proceedings of Anandapuram Police Station which was Visakhapatnam Commissioneate, Commissioner Police M^roldrASranf'"'' '='^-°^'History Sheet/ACP: and Personal Liberty and pass not to interfere in their Right to life Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. REDDY VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following; WP.No.20411 of 2024 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.20411 of 2024 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is challenging the in-action on part of the respondents in closing the suspect sheet vide proceedings in C.No.04/History Sheet/ACP-MWD/2015. 2. The petitioner in was shown as Accused No.3 in CC.No.518 of 2008 and petitioner was acquitted on 28.10.2014 by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Accused No.5 in CC.No.58 of 2016 and the petitioner was acquitted on 18.12.2017 by the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam and also Accused No.4 in CC.No.293 of 2018 XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam. learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the respondents have not closed the rowdy sheet though there is no other case pending against the petitioner. 3. The 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that continuation of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is also a social sigma on the petitioner. It is also submitted that continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner though there is pending against the petitioners amounts to interfering with the no case 114// WP.No.20411 of 2024 fundamental rights of the petitioners i.e., right to live with dignity and the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d). 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents submits that a counter is filed and that the Police Standing Orders 602(2) clearly mentioned that nothing precludes the SP/DCP/CP from continuing a rowdy sheet on the sole ground that the history/rowdy sheeter is not figuring as an accused in the previous five years. It would depend upon the nature of the activities of the history/rowdy sheeter for continuing the suspect sheet to enable peace and tranquility in the society. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the state does not dispute that there are no cases pending against the petitioner; however submits that the petitioners activities would require continuous surveillance for the police to maintain the law and order in the state. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the state and perused the material on record. 8. The following questions would fall for consideration of these writ petitions ; r WP.No.20411 of 2024 I. Whether the fundamental right under Article 19(1 ){d) of a Citizen is infringed upon on account of continued surveillance under the guise of opening and continuing history sheet ? The scope of judicial review of history sheet / rowdy sheet on the touchstone of reasonableness, arbitrariness and non-application of mind ? II. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not accused and are not facing trial in any matters. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is not convicted of any offence(s). 10. The stand taken by the respondents, that the Police Standing Orders would empower the respondents to open history sheet/rowdy sheet in order to maintain law and order is not a unfettered right. The Police Standing Orders do not have statutory force. The standing orders are only administrative instructions. It is also not in dispute that the Police Standing Orders which are issued under the Police Act would have statutory force. 11. It is pertinent to refer to Chapter 31 of the A.P. Police Code which contains 24 Standing Orders. They deal with the Station' Crime history. Standing Orders 733 to 741 and Standing Order 749 deal with History sheets. Standing Order 742 deals with WP.No.20411 of 2024 N rowdy sheets. Standing Orders 733 to 737 relating to history sheets reads as follows ; "S.O. 733. Part V-History Sheets:- Part V consists of History Sheet (Form 87) of persons resident permanently or temporarily in the station limits, who are known or believed to be addicted to or to aid and abet the commission of crime, whether convicted or not, or who are believed to be habitual receivers. S.O. 734. Automatic opening of History Sheets: (1) History sheets shall be opened automatically at the time of conviction for persons convicted as under and shall be retained for two years after release from jail. (2) Persons convicted as above will be styled 'known depredators'. However, inmates or ex-inmates of Borstal Institution should not be styled as 'known depredators'. (3) History sheets should be opened for such of those registered ex-notified tribe members under Order 736, for whom the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Officer thinks it advisable to do so on account of their active criminality. (4) The History Sheet of a known depredator, against whom an order has been passed Under Section 556 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) shall not be closed until the period during which he is required to report changes of residence has elapsed. (G.O.Ms.No. 332 Judl. Dated: 20-2-1906 and 497 Law General dated 10-2-1923). S.0.735. Discontinuance of History Sheets: (1) History Sheet shall be closed by the definite orders of a Gazetted Officer and shall be filed in the Station. The History Sheets of persons, who have died shall be destroyed by the order of a Gazetted Officer. The Superintendent of Police may order the closure of History Sheet at any time, but a Sub-Divisional in/i WP.No.20411 of 2024 Officer may only do so on the expiry of the period named above. (2) Where the retention of a history sheet is considered necessary after two years of registration, orders of a Gazetted Officer must be taken for the extension of the period in the first instance upto the end of the next December, and for further annual extensions from January to December. (G.O.Ms. No. 3929, Home dt: 5-9-1950) S.O. 736. Suspects;-(1) The following persons should be classed as suspects and history sheets shall be opened for them under the orders of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Officer, (a) persons once convicted under any section of the Indian Penal Code who are considered likely to commit Crime again; and (b) persons not convicted but believed to be addicted to crime. (2) Care should be taken to see that history sheets opened under this order only for persons who likely to turn out to be habitual criminals and, therefore required to be closely watched. S.O.737. Period of retention of History Sheets of suspects: History Sheets of suspects shall be maintained from the date of registration upto the end of December, after which the orders of a Gazetted Officer as to their discontinuance or retention for a further period shall be obtained. (G.O.Ms. No. 3929 Home dt:5.9.1950). 14. A reading of the Standing Orders leads to the following are are conclusions: a) A police station has to open History sheet automatically at the time of conviction of a person. WP.No.20411 012024 But the conviction is not for all offences. When a person is convicted once Under 310(2) to 310(5) of BNS (Previously Sections 395 to 402 IPC), when a person is convicted twice for house breaking or theft when a person is bound over twice Under Section 128 of BNSS (previously Section 109 of the Code Criminal Procedure), and bound over once the Police are empowered to open history sheet. Besides these, persons who are convicted for offences relating to coins and Government Stamps and persons convicted twice for the offences like theft and house breaking and professional prisoners are also the persons against whom history sheet be automatically opened by the police, b) History sheets can also be opened even if there is no conviction. But in such case the person should have been known or believed to be addicted to aid or abet the commission of a crime. of can . or c) The History Sheet opened shall be continued and maintained only for a period of two years and shall be closed only on definite orders of Gazetted Officer. The Police may however order closure of the History Sheet at any time (PSO 735). d) The History Sheet can be continued and maintained for further period of one year till the end of December, but such continuance can be on specific orders of a Gazetted Officer who after considering the case comes to conclusion that it is necessary to continue the History Sheet and extend retention of the History Sheet. Annual extensions for continuation of History Sheet can also be given from January to December, (PSOs. 735 and 737). e) The police may also open history sheets for suspects. Suspects are those persons who are convicted under any section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and who are considered likely to commit crime again. Persons who are not convicted but are believed to be addicted to crime are also treated as suspects. In case a History Sheet is opened on the ground that a person is a suspect care should be taken that History Sheets are opened WP.No.20411 of 2024 only for persons who are likely to become habitual criminals (PSO 736). 12. The police after opening history sheets would constantly keep the history sheeter under their radar of surveillance. The would restrict the free movement of the said citizen. same 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kharaksingh Vs. The State of U.P and others^ had dealt with this issue and duly considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras^ case set aside the suspect sheet by holding that such illogical acts without adequate and justifiable reasons which is infringe upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner therein. 14. On the facts of the present case, the continuance of rowdy sheet against the petitioner would amount to illegal surveillances which is an arbitrary act on part of the state. The same includes the right to privacy and violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, it is made clear that keeping a person under watch to prevent crime and to maintain law and order as authorized by law is a reasonable restriction which is permissible under the Constitution of India. ^ 1963 AIR Supreme Court 1295 2 AIR 1950 SC 27 WP.No.20411 of 2024 15. There is no justification i against the petitioner when there i and continuation of rowdy sheet against the in accordance with the Police Standing Orders referred in continuation of the rowdy sheet IS no case pending against him petitioner is also not above. 16. For the aforementioned mandamus is issued to the subordinates to close reasons, the writ petition is allowed. A respondents and to their the rowdy sheet C.No.04/History Sheet/ACP-MWD/2015 against the petitioner. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department Velgapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General Amaravati, Guntur District 3- The Commisisoner of Police, 530001 of Home, AP Secretariat Buildings of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh DGP Office Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam District- 4. The Deputy Commissioner District-530001 of Police, Suryabagh Visakhapatnam 5. The Assistant Commissioner Visakahapatnam City. 6. The of Police, Madhurawad Sub-Division, Sub-Inspector Visakhapantam District. of Police, Anandapuram Police Station T. One CC to Sri Reddy Venkata 8. Two CCS to GP for Home, 9. Two CD Copies Ramana, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] TF HIGH COURT DATED:09/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 20411 OF 2024 5( 2 9JUL 2025 o> O ?^i^s(Iurrent ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS