IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 1599 OF 9noi; Between: Varshachalam Dileep Kumar @ Dileep years, Private Employee, Resident of D.No.8/390, Ratnam Street Ranganayukulapet, Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District. S/0. Penchalaiah, aged about 33 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, H^e Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, AP. 2. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Neilore Town, Sub-Division, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District, v/ 3. The Inspector of Police, Dargamitta Police Nellore District. Station, Nellore Town, SPSR ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order nature of writ of Mandamus may or direction more particularly one in the declaring the action of the 2 nd and 3' proceedings vide C.No.152/GL continuing Rowdy Sheet No. respondents herein for challenging SDPON(T)/2023 dated 08.12.2023 the as 193 in the Durgamitta Police Station said sole case of conviction 2016 on 05.08.2024 had, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the Police Orders and the law laid down on a sole case despite setting aside of the order by this Hon’ble Court in CRL.A.No.1280 of against the SC.No.277 of 2013 dated 14.12.2016 is Standing by this Hon'bie Court by infringement of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the impi^ned proceedings as issued by the 2 C.No.l52/GL-SDPON(T)/2023 dated 08.1Z2023 Sheet No. 193 by the 3'^^ respondent Police. consequently set aside the said respondent vide as continuing the Rowdy nd lA NO: 1 OF 2n7.<> Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings as issued by the 2nd datedC.No.152/GL-'sDPON(T)/2023 continuing the Rowdy Sheet No. 193"by the 3rd the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRi V. SURENDRA respondent vide 08.12.2023 as respondent Police against REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010031812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 050 [3457] f WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 1599/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Varshachalam Dileep Kumar @ Dileep AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VSURENDRA REDDY 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 and 3 in challenging the proceedings vide C.No.152/GL-SDPON(T)/2023, dated 08.12.2023 as continuing Rowdy Sheet No. 193 in Durgamitta Police Station on a sole case despite setting aside of the said sole case by this Court in Crl.A.No.1280 of 2016 on 05.08.2024 is bad, illegal and arbitrary. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents. 2. 2 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. 3. Considering the above submission, this Writ Petition is allowed, in terms of the above said 4. common order dated 06.03.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.18717 and 18725 of 2024. The proceedings vide C.No.152/GL- SDPON(T)/2023, dated 08.12.2023 issued by the 2"'^ respondent is hereby set aside. 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.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// KSECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi, AP. 2. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Town, Sub-Division, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Dargamitta Police Station, Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District. 4. One CC to Sri V. Surendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies. (Along with a copy of the common order dated 06.03.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.18717 and 18725 of 2024, to this order) ssb HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.1599 of 2025 S3; 01 JUL 2025 irrent Section^] o 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 r #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 #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. AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District AP and 3 others. +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 ...Respondents ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District, AP and 3 others. DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED; 06.03.2025 ...Respondents SUBMITTED FOR APPRQVAI ■ HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Whether the copies of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 2. Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Yes/No JUSTICE HARINATH.N 112,11 WP.NOS.18717& 18725 of 2024 APHC010366212024 i<r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18717/2024 Between: Rayana Durga Rao ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SHA1K ALI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME APHC010366222024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [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 mnp^rnoN and 18725 nf onoA COMMON ORDFR ; T The petitioners respondents in closing the challenging the In-action on part of the are 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 judgment dated 21.05.2015 Magistrate, Vijayawada. was shown as Accused was acquitted vide by the learned Chief Metropolitan and the petitioner 3- The petitioner in WP.No. 18725 of Accused No.5 in CC.No.771 of 2014 and acquitted vide judgment dated 21. 2024 was arraigned as the petitioner 05.2015 by the learned Chief was Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners respondents have not closed the submits that the suspect sheet though there is no other case pending against the which petitioners and the only petitioners ended case was registered against the up in acquittal. 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 pending against the petitioners amounts to the fundamental rights of the petitioners i.e., right and the right guaranteed under Article f" there is no case interfering with to live with dignity 19(1)(d). Government Pleader representing the 6. The learned Assistant respondents submits that a counter is filed and that the Police Orders 602(2) clearly mentioned that nothing precludes Standing 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 sheeter for continuing the suspect sheet activities of the history to enable peace and tranquility in the society. for the 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing cases pending against state does not dispute that there are the petitioners; however submits that the petitioners activities wouid require continuous surveiilance for the police to maintain no the law and order in the state. WP.Nos.18717 & 18725 of 2024 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the state and the material on record. perused 9. The following questions would fall for consideration of these petitions ; writ 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 ? II. The scope of judicial review of history sheet / rowdy sheet on the touchstone of reasonableness arbitrariness and non-application of mind ? 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are not accused and are not facing trial in any matters. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are not convicted of any offence(s). 11. The stand taken by the respondents, that the Police Standing Orders would empower the respondents to open history sheets/rowdy sheets 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. mu 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 Order736, 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. History SheiS^hr? “1 Sheets: of a Gazetted Officer and shall orders The History Sheets of nlf •'’® Sfation. be destroyed by the ordlr of ^''^ll Superintendent oV po S It The History Sheet at anv ‘''® Officer may only do so on t’hp^^ ^ Sub-Divisional named above. of the (1) of period (2) Where the considered retention of orders of a Gutted'mceT^iT,i°! ''®9i®'ration, extension of the period in thl T ^ ^^e end of the next December and extensions from Januarvto nf^ ^'^"^al 3929, Home dt: 5-9 S) No. should bf'classed ""arluiplcts P®''sons shall be opened for them^?nd Superintendent of Police or Snh^n-^^® °''ce or Sub-Divisional Officer, (a) persons once convicted under Indian Penal Code who commit Crime again; and (b) persons addicted to crime. a history sheet iIS any section of the considered likely to are not convicted but believed to be (2) Care should be talcnn are opened under this order^nni '^'^^ory sheets are likely to turn out to ht h who therefore required ,o be closely watahed™'™'^ S.0.737. Period suspects; History Sheeir'^ maintained from the date of of December, after Officer as to their further period shall be Home dt;5.9.1950). History Sheets suspects shall be which dpto the end which the orders of a Gazetted discontinuance or retention fori obtained. (G.O.Ms. No. of 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 also the persons against whom history sheet can be automatically opened by the police. are 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 rnmmf’ considered likely to commit crime again. Persons who are not convicted frelt^d^ 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 susoect care should be taken that History Sheets are opened only for persons who are likely to become habitual criminals (PSO 736). naoiiuai 13. The police after X 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. 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.fC. Gopa/an w 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. 15. On the facts of the sheet against the petitioner would which is an arbitrary act the right to privacy and violates Article present case, the continuance of history amount to illegal surveillances on part of the state. The same includes 21 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, it is made clear that keeping under watch to prevent crime and to maintain law and order a person as ' 1963 AIR Supreme Court 1295 2 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