APHC010407602024 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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20806 OF 2024 Between: Balaga Anil Kumar, S/o. Late Simhachalam, Aged 24 years ,N K Rajapuram Village, Palakonda Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Superintend of Police, Parvathipuram Manyam District. 3. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Palakonda, Parvathipuram Manyam District. 4. The Station House Officer, Palakonda police Station Manyam District. Parvathipuram ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents No.3 and 4 in opening and continue the suspect sheet against the petitioner in the 4th respondent police station and thereby disturbing the personal liberty of the petitioner under the guise of surveillance and frequently summoning the petitioner to the police station and detaining the petitioner in the police station without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 and respondents to close the suspect sheet pending against the 4'^ respondent police station. 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the petitioner in the lA NO: 1 OF 9n9d Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i pleased to direct the praying that in the circumstances stated in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be respondents not to summon the petitioner to the police station on the ground of pendency of the Suspect personal liberty under the guise of surveillance sheet by disturbing the pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M. SAPTHAGIRI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: APHC010407602024 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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20806/2024 [3457] Between; 1.BALAGA ANIL KUMAR, S/O LATE SIMHACHALAM AGED 24 YEARS ,N K RAJAPURAM VILLAGE, PALAKONDAMAN DAL PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. SECRETARIAT 2.THE SUPERENDENT MANYAM DISTRICT. 3.THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE ' .PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. 4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER. PALAKONDA POLICE STATION, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. OF POLICE, PARVATHIPURAM OFFICER, PALAKONDA ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that m the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ .order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the of the respondents No.3 and 4 in action . , opening and continue the suspect sheet against the petitioner in the 4th respondent police station and therby disturbing the personal liberty of the petitioner under the guise of surveillance and frequently summoning the petitioner to the police station and detaining the petitioner in the police station without following due process of law as arbitrary,illegal and violation of Article II2II WP.No.20806 of 2024 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consquently direct the respondents to close the suspect sheet pending against the petitioner in the 4th respondent police station and to pass lANO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to direct the respondents not to summon the petitioner to the police station on the ground of pendency of the Suspect sheet by disturbing the personal liberty under the guise of surveillance pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: I.M. SAPTHAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 11211 WP.No.20806 of 2024 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.20806 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.83/Suspect/SDO-P/2021. 2. The petitioner in was shown as Accused No.1 in CC.No.260 of 2021 and the sanne was settled before Lok Adalat and the petitioner was acquitted on 11.12.2021 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakonda. 3. The 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. 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 no case pending against the petitioners amounts to interfering with the fundamental rights of the petitioners i.e., right to live with dignity and the right guaranteed under Article 19(1 )(d). HAH WP.No.20806 of 2024 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 ; 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 ? WP.No.20806 of 2024 II. The scope of judicial review of history sheet / rowdy the touchstone of reasonableness, sheet arbitrariness and non-application of mind ? on 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 forde. 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 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 WP.No.20806 of 2024 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 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 or 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 the Sub-Divisional Officer thinks it advisable to do 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.O.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 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 or so mu WP.No.20806 of 2024 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 are opened under this order only for persons who are 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.C.Ms. No. 3929 Home dt:5.9.1950). 14. A reading of the Standing Crders leads to the following conclusions: a) A police station has to open History sheet automatically at the time of conviction of a person. 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 of Criminal Procedure), and bound over once the WP.No.20806 of 2024 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 i; no conviction. But in such case the person should have been known or believed to be addicted to aid or abet the commission of can IS or a crime. 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 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 same would restrict the free movement of the said citizen. WP.No.20806 of 2024 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 the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in considering A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras^ case set aside the suspect that such illogical acts without adequate and sheet by holding justifiable reasons which is infringe upon of the petitioner therein. the fundamental rights 14. On the facts of the present case, the continuance of rowdy sheet would amount to illegal surveillances which includes the against the petitioner an arbitrary act on part of the state. The same violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India, made clear that keeping a person under watch to prevent crime and to maintain law and order as reasonable restriction which is permissible IS right to privacy and At the same time, it is authorized by law is a under the Constitution of India. in continuation of the rowdy sheet case pending against him of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is also not with the Police Standing Orders referred above. 15. There is no justification against the petitioner when there is and continuation no in accordance ' 1963 AIR Supreme Court 1295 2 AIR 1950 sc 27 Inon WP.No.20806 of 2024 16. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents and subordinates to close the suspect sheet C.No.83/Suspect/SDO- P/2021 against the petitioner. No to their costs. 17. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 1 //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District, 2. The Superintend of Police, Parvathipuram 3. The Sub Divisional Police District. 4. The Station House Manyam District. 5. One CC to Sri M. Sapthagiri, Advocate 6. Two CCs to GP for Home 7. Two CD Copies Pradesh. Manyam District. Officer, Palakonda, Parvathipuram Manyam Officer, Palakonda police Station, Parvathipuram [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:09/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 20806 OF 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS