APHC010539162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 27821/2025 Between: 1. B K LATHA, S/O B.N.KOTESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1-14, THUMMALA GUNTA, TIRUPATHI RURAL, CHITTOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT), O/O.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA. ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in insisting on the Petitioner's appearance without permitting his Advocate's presence during the investigation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India b) Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner's Advocate to be present within visible but not audible distance during the course of the Petitioner's interrogation/investigation in Cr.No.21/2024 U/S 420, 409, 384, 201, 120 (b) r/w 34 and 37 IPC and Sec.7, 7A, 8, 9, 12, 13 (1) (a), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act1988 of CID PS, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PASAPALA SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2 APHC010539292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 27822/2025 Between: 1. K. BEEVAN REDDY, S/O K.MANOHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-3/B, TUMMALAGUNTA VILLAGE TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL. CHITTURU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. 2. THE DIRECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT), O/O COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA. ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in insisting on the Petitioners appearance without permitting his Advocates presence during the investigation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India b) Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioners Advocate to be present within visible but not audible distance during the course of the Petitioners interrogation/investigation in Cr.No.21/2024 U/S 420, 409, 384, 201, 120 (b) r/w 34 and 37 IPC and Sec.7, 7A, 8, 9, 12, 13 (1) (a), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act1988 of CID PS, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PASAPALA SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 APHC010539262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 27823/2025 Between: 1. J LOKESH KUMAR REDDY, S/O J. ASHOK KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O V.R.AGRAHARAM, BODEVANDLAPALLI CHITTOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT), O/O COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA. ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in insisting on the Petitioners appearance without permitting his Advocates presence during the investigation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India b) Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioners Advocate to be present within visible but not audible distance during the course of the Petitioners interrogation/investigation in Cr.No.21/2024 U/S 420, 409, 384, 201, 120 (b) r/w 34 and 37 IPC and Sec.7, 7A, 8, 9, 12, 13 (1) (a), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act1988 of CID PS, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PASAPALA SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 4 APHC010539182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 27824/2025 Between: 1. B VINAY KUMAR, S/O PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3/142, PERIMIDI VILLAGE, BALAYAPALLI MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT), O/O COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA. ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in insisting on the Petitioners appearance without permitting his Advocates presence during the investigation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India b) Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioners Advocate to be present within visible but not audible distance during the course of the Petitioners interrogation/investigation in Cr.No.21/2024 U/S 420, 409, 384, 201, 120 (b) r/w 34 and 37 IPC and Sec.7, 7A, 8, 9, 12, 13 (1) (a), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Acti 988 of CID PS, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh and Pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PASAPALA SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 5 APHC010539192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 27825/2025 Between: 1. KURRA MUNITIESHIKAR REDDY,, S/O K.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-3/A, TUMMALAGUNTA VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT), O/O COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA. ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in insisting on the Petitioner's appearance without permitting his Advocate's presence during the investigation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India b) Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner's Advocate to be present within visible but not audible distance during the course of the Petitioner's interrogation/investigation in Cr.No.21/2024 U/S 420, 409, 384, 201, 120 (b) r/w 34 and 37 IPC and Sec.7, 7A, 8, 9, 12, 13 (1) (a), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act1988 of CID PS, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PASAPALA SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 6 APHC010539212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 27826/2025 Between: 1. CHEVIREDDY JITHENDRA, S/O RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O D.NO 9-43/A, SRINIVASAPURAM, HUMMALA GUNTA, TIRUPATHI RURAL, CHITTOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT), O/O COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA. ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in insisting on the Petitioners appearance without permitting his Advocates presence during the investigation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India b) Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioners Advocate to be present within visible but not audible distance during the course of the Petitioners interrogation/investigation in Cr.No.21/2024 U/S 420, 409, 384, 201, 120 (b) r/w 34 and 37 IPC and Sec.7, 7A, 8, 9, 12, 13 (1) (a), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act1988 of CID PS, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PASAPALA SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 7 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved and the parties are one and the same, these Writ Petition are being disposed of by this Common Order. Brief facts of the case are that: The C.I.D Police Station, Mangalagiri has registered separate crimes against the Petitioners herein on 23.09.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 384, 201, and 120(B) read with 34 & 37 IPC and Sections, 7, 7A, 8, 9, 12, 13(1)(a), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Petitioners herein are not arrayed as Accused in these crimes and they are residents are Tummalagunta village & Post, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. In connection with the said crimes, Investigating Officer issued notice dated 07.10.2025 to the Petitioners under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “BNSS”) with a request to appear before him on 09.10.2025 for the purpose of investigation and also to produce some relevant documents. Heard Sri Pasala Sudhakar Reddy, the learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sai Rohit, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CID appearing for respondent/State. Perused the material on record. 8 The learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Petitioners may be permitted to have the presence of their respective counsels to ensure that no coercive steps or illegal methods are adopted by the Investigating agency during the course of recording their statements on the given date and time. Further, in WP No. 27821 of 2025, Petitioner is a lady and she cannot be insisted to appear before the respondent authorities in the Police Station. Therefore, prays for a direction to respondent authorities to permit the Petitioner’s Advocate while recording their witness statements. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel would submit that Petitioners herein are not accused and being witnesses, they have to appear before SIT in obedience of the order. They cannot ask the presence of their counsel as a matter of right. They are not entitled for such accommodation. Further, the apprehension of the Petitioners is purely imaginary. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, in case of accused, protection can be given to accompany with the counsel to prevent any third degree treatment in the hands of the Police during such examination. Learned Senior Counsel finally prays for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. It is appropriate to mention here that this Court vide order dated 22.08.2025 in WP No.22577 of 2025 elaborately discussed the scope of Section 179 of BNSS (160 Cr.P.C.). Relevant paragraph is extracted as under: (1) Power of the Police Officer making an investigation to have the presence of “any person” before him by issuing a notice under Section 179 of BNSS is not untrammelled. 9 (2) The said power is restricted to “any person” residing in the limits of his own Police Station or adjoining station. (3) Despite the said person residing in the limits of his Police Station or any other adjoining station, in case of male below 15 and above 60 years, or woman, mentally or physically disabled or a person with acute illness irrespective of their age, shall be examined at the place of their residence under the first proviso to Section 179(1) of BNSS. But the Police Officer can issue notice to such person under Section 179(1) of BNSS. (4) The above persons may be permitted to be examined at the Police Station subject to their willingness, by the aid of second proviso to Section 179(1) of BNSS. (5) Police Officer making an investigation has no power to issue notice under Section 179(1) of BNSS to any person who is not residing within the limits of his own station or any adjoining station. (6) It does not preclude the Police Officer making an investigation to examine such person by approaching him at his place. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and considering the submissions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of at the stage of admission, with the following observations. 1) Investigating Officer shall record the statement of the Petitioners through electronic means i.e., in audio and video recording, in addition to recording the statements in a traditional way. 2) Respondent No.3 is directed to conduct examination from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. with a lunch break, and thereafter from 2.00 pm. to 5.00 p.m. on the day as notified in the notice issued to the Petitioners. 10 3) As the Petitioners are summoned as witnesses under BNSS, no coercive steps to be taken against the Petitioners during their examination. 4) As far as the Petitioner in WP No.27821 of 2025 is concerned, being a woman, she can inform to the Investigating Officer about her convenience to attend before SIT office or record her statement at her residence. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 11 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition Nos. 27821, 27822, 27823, 27824, 27825 & 27826 of 2024 08.10.2025 Mjl /*