4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATU (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N / WRIT PETITION NO: 24911 OF 2024 Between: Shaik Junaid, S/o Jaleel, Aged about 37 Years, H.No.22-11-5/1, 2 Wood Nagar, Chirala nd Lane, ...PETITIONER'^ AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chirala, Bapatla. 3. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chirala Circle Bapatia District. 4. The Station House Officer, I Town Police Station Chirala, Bapatla 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of Respondents No. 2 to 4 in opening the Rowdy sheet No. 980 against the petitioner as illegal arbitrary. Violation of AP Police Standing Order 601 and contrary to the Principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents No. 2 to 4 to close the Rowdy sheet No. 980 against the petitioner in the interest of justice. ' ' < lA NO: 1 OF 2024 U-- 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 to direct the respondents No. 2 to 4 not to disturb /liberty of the petitioner by summoning him gfound 6f the Rowdy Sheet, pending disposal Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI MAGANTI SAI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME ';.V the personal to the police station on the i i i of the Writ Petition. The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010479602024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) lU [3457] B u' .• WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 24911/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER Shaik Junaid AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MAGANTI SAI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in the rowdy sheet No.980 against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents. On hearing, it is conjointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader that this matter is squarely covered by a common order of this Court dated 06.03.2025 passed in W.P,Nos.18717 and 18725 of 2024. opening 2. 3. 2 Considering the above submission, this Writ Petition is allowed 4. in terms of the above said common order dated 06.03.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.18717 and 18725 of 2024. A writ of mandamus is hereby issued to the respondents and to their subordinates, to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner vide proceedings C.No.6/ROWDY-SDOC/14, dated 25.04.2014. 5 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. 6. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the common order dated 06.03.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.18717 and 18725 of 2024, to this order. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY ,REGISTRA^R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chirala, Bapatla. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chirala Circle Bapatia District. The Station House Officer, 1 Town Police Station Chirala, Bapa^. District. One CC to Sri Maganti Sai Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Three CD Copies. (Along with a copy of the common order dated 06.03.2025 pas^^d in W.P. Nos.18717 and 18725 of 2024, to this order) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. [OL)f] 6. 7. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.24911 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +WRIT PETITION No.18717 OF 2024 %06.03.2025 #Between: Rayana Durga Rao, S/o.Venkateswara rao, aged 38 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.D.No.3-1-130, Dr.BR Ambedkar Road, Kamakotinagar, Ramarajya nagar, Vijayawada, A.P., NTR District, AP. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District, AP and 3 others. ...Respondents +WRIT PETITION No.18725 OF 2024 %06.03.2025 #Between: Kama Vijay Babu, S/o.Kama adam, aged 46 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.D.No.3-1-40, Kebala Road, Ramarajya Nagar, Vijayawada, NTR District, AP. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District, AP and 3 others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SHAIKALI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 1963 AIR Supreme Court 1295 2. AIR 1950 SC 27 This Court made the following: II2II WP.NOS.18717& 18725 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI •HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +WRIT PETITION No.18717 OF 2024 %06.03.2025 #Betwe8n: Rayana Durga Rao, S/o.Venkateswara rao, aged 38 years Occ oolie, R/o.D.No.3-1-130, Dr.BR Ambedkar Road, Kamakotinaoar Ramarajya nagar, Vijayawada, A.P., NTR District, AP. ^ ’ ...Petitioner AND Hnlfn® Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary and 3 others ' ■^raaravrati, Guntur District, AP ...Respondents +WRIT PETITION No.1872.5 OF 2024 %06.03.2025 — #Between: Kama Vijay Babu, S/o.Kama adam R/o.D.No.3-1-40, Kebala Road, NTR District, AP. aged 46 years, Occ: Coolie, Ramarajya Nagar, Vijayawada, ...Petitioner AND “f'^ddhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary and 3 oS ’ Araaravati, Guntur District, AP ...Respondents DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 06.03.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVai ■ HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers be allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? may Yes/No Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Yes/No JUSTICE HARINATH.N 111,11 WP.Nos.18717 & 18725 of 2024 APHC010366212024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY. THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18717/2024 [3457] Between: Rayana Durga Rao ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SHAIKAL1 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010366222024 [3457] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18725/2024 Between: Kama Vijay Babu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SHAIKALI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following Common Order : ...RESPONDENT(S) ' WP.Nos.18717 & 18725 of 2024 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION Nn«; 18717 and 187?.q nf 9n9.i MON ORDER : r'rkRii w ^grg 1. The petitioners are challenging the in-action on part of the respondents in closing the suspect sheet which proceedings No.C.No.28/ACP-W2/2014, C.NO.32/ACP-W2/2014, dated 04.06.2014 was opened vide dated 04.06.2014 and respectively. 2. The petitioner in WP.No.18717 of 2024 No.3 in CC.No.771 of 2014 and the judgment dated 21.05.2015 by the learned Magistrate, Vijayawada. was shown as Accused petitioner was acquitted vide Chief Metropolitan 3. The petitioner in WP.No. 18725 of 2024 Accused No.5 in CC.No.771 of 2014 was arraigned as and the petitioner acquitted vide judgment dated 21.05.2015 by the learned i was Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents have not closed the petitioners submits that the suspect sheet though there is no other case pending against the petitioners and the only case which was registered against the petitioners ended acquittal. up in II5II WP.Nos.18717 & 18725 of 2024 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that continuation of history sheet against the petitioners is also a social sigma on the petitioners. It is also submitted that continuation of the history sheet against the petitioners 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). 6. 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 history sheet on the sole ground that the history sheeter is not figuring as an accused in the previous five years. It would depend upon the nature of the activities of the history sheeter for continuing the suspect sheet to enable peace and tranquility in the society. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the state does not dispute that there are no cases pending against the petitioners; however submits that the petitioners activities would require continuous surveillance for the police to maintain the law and order in the state. WP.NOS.18717& 18725 of 2024 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners learned Assistant Government Pleader for and the the state and perused the materia! on record. 9. The following questions petitions ; would fall for consideration of these writ I. Whether the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d)of SI ini'n infringed upon on account of continued history sheet"? of opening and continuing IhtefT =heet / rowdy arhiLinTss a'^nol^araTon 01^7?“"^"“^-' 10. it is not in dispute that the petitioners are not accused and not facing trial in any matters, it is also not in dispute that the petitioners are not convicted of any offence(s). are 11. The stand taken by the Orders would respondents, that the Police Standing empower the respondents to open history sheets/rowdy sheets in order to maintain law and order i unfettered right. The Police IS not a Standing Orders do not have statutory force. The standing orders instructions. It is also not i are only administrative in dispute that the Police Standing Orde.rs which are issued under tha Police Act would i.ave Statutory force. 1/711 WP.Nos.18717 & 18725 of 2024 12. 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 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 Superintendentof 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). WP.Nos.18717 & 18725 of 2024 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 >.e destroyed by the order of a Gazetted Officer The Superintendent of Police may order the closure of H^tory 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 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 should be classed as suspects and history sheets shall be opened for them under the orders of Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Officer, (a) persons once convicted under Indian Penal Code who commit Crime again; and (b) persons not convicted but believed 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 therefore required to be closely watched. S.0.737. Period of retention of History Sheets 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 Home dt:5.9.1950). persons the any section of the are considered likely to to be and. of 3929 WP.Nos.18717 & 18725 of 2024 14. A reading of the Standing Orders 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 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 can be automaticallyopened 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, or aid or abet the commission of 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 WP.Nos.18717 & 18725 of 2024 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 openeu 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). 13. The police after opening history sheets would the history sheeter under their radar constantly keep of surveillance. The would restrict the free movement of the said citizen. same 14. 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./C. Gopalan v. State of Madras^ case set aside the suspect adequate and is infringe upon the fundamental rights sheet by holding that such illogical acts without justifiable reasons which i of the petitioner therein. 15. On the facts of the present case, the continuance of history amount to illegal surveillances same includes sheet against the petitioner would which is an arbitrary act on part of the state. The 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 tu iiidiiitaiii law and order as ’ 1963 AIR Supreme Court 1295 ^AIR 1950 SC 27 WP.Nos.18717 & 18725 of 2024 authorized by law is a reasonable restriction which is permissible under the Constitution of India. 16. There is no justification in continuation of the history sheet against the petitioners when there is no case pending against them and continuation of history sheet against the petitioner is also not in accordance with the Police Standing Orders referred above. 17. For the aforementioned reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents and to their subordinates to close history sheet opened vide proceeding No.C.No.28/ACP-WZ/2014, dated 04.06.2014 and C.No.32/ACP- WZ/2014, dated 04.06.2014 respectively.No costs. 18. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 06.03.2025 LR Copy to be marked B/o.KGM WP.Nos.18717 & 18725 of 2024 152 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION Nos.18717 and 18725 of 2n?4i Dated 06.03.2025 ' LR COPY KGM