A W IN THE HIQH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARA (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8554 OF 207^ ¥5 >1 RAO Between: Shaik Chinthapalli Nanne, S/o Shaik Chinthapalli Pedda Mastan 63 years, Occ Agriculturalist R/o 5-80, Pinnelli Presently Residing at Mallareddy Gudem Telangana. Aged about Machavaram, Palnadu District. ...PETITIONER/S AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Home Department Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, rep by its Principal Secretary. 2. The Director General of Police, Vaddeswaram, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. State of Andhra Pradesh, 3. The Superintendent of Police, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 4. The Station House Officer, Dachepalli Police Station , Palnadu District. ...RESPONDENT/S Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ, order directing the respondents to produce petitioner one in or direction son i.e., Chinthapalli Alias Sattenapalli Pedda Saida before this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner{s):SRI. RAMALAKSHMANA SANEPALLI Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following ORDER: REDDY APHC010166502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH 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: 8554/2025 Between: Shaik Chinthapalli Nanne ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) V Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Remand Report and the order of remand have been placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that various submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the detenues before 2. the learned Magistrate were not considered by the learned Magistrate such, this Court would have to intervene in the matter. , and as 3. As the remand order does not mention any of the said submissions it would be difficult for this Court to proceed on that basis. 4. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is Closed leaving it open to the petitioner or the detenues to set out their case in writing before the learned Magistrate and seek an order on that basis. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A. VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. One CC to SRI. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI Advocate [OPUC]^.^ 2. One CC to SRI. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies » ■ psk J )V • ^ HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 ORDER I 03 OCT 2® i ^ . Current section * ^*5!;6£^SPaTC»'^<^ WP.No.8554 of 2025 CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH NO COSTS