APHC010562822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 29230 OF 2025 Between: 1. G V BHASKAR REDDY, S/o. G.V. Narayana Reddy, aged about 49 years, R/o. 0-0, Gadduru, Gadduru, Theertham Village, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. Superintendent of Police, Chittoor 3. Circle Inspector, Baireddypalle, Chittoor District 4. Nagaraju, S/o. Not known. Head Constable, Baireddypalle Police Station, Chittoor District 5. Ranjeeth, S/o. Not known, Constable, Baireddypalle Police Station, Chittoor District 6. Subrahmanyam, S/o. not known. Constable, Baireddypalle Police Station, Chittoor District 7. G S Venkatesh Reddy, S/o. G. Sreenivasa Reddy, Aged about 48 years, R/o. D.No. 9-146/2, T. Gaddur Village,Baireddypalle Mandal, Chittoor 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 toPleased to issue Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents 4 to 6 in interfering with the writ petitioner personal liberty by forcefully taking the writ petitioner to 3rd respondent police station on 04.10.2025 and detaining him till evening without any complaint against the writ petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 21, 22 of Indian Constitution and against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to cause enquiry against the Respondents 4 to 6 for their high handed behaviour with the writ petitioner on 04.10.2025 and take action against them and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 no 3 to 6 not to harass the writ petitioner by calling upon him to Police station, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: K V RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents:K SRINIVAS The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents 4 to 6 in interfering with the writ petitioner personal liberty by forcefully taking the writ petitioner to 3rd respondent police station on 04.10.2025 and detaining him till evening without any complaint against the writ petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 21, 22 of Indian Constitution and against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to cause enquiry against the Respondents 4 to 6 for their high handed behaviour with the writ petitioner on 04.10.2025 and take action against them...“ 2. Heard Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.Farook, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents, on written instructions, would submit that police have registered a case on the complaint made by 7th respondent in Cr.No.100 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 129(3), 351(2), 324 read with 3(5) of the BNS of Byreddipalle Police Station and police never threatened and harassed the petitioner and when the police tried to issue 35(3) BNSS notice to the petitioner, the petitioner refused to take it. 4. Learned counsel for 7th respondent, Sri K.Srinivas would submit that petitioner has been disturbing the mining activities of 7th respondent every day. Due to their unbearable harassment, he lodged a complaint against the petitioner. 5. In reply to that, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that police threatened the petitioner and his family members and the petitioner was taken to the police station and the entire incident is video graphed. Because of that, the petitioner has mentioned the respondents by name in the petition by making specific allegations against them. 6. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of. However, 2nd respondent/ Superintendent of Police, Chittoor is directed to enquire into the matter regarding the alleged harassment made by the police to the petitioner and his family members even before the registration of the FIR and police are directed to follow due process of law regarding the crime which is registered against the petitioner. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 31.10.2025 Dvs THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 125 WRIT PETITION NO: 29230 of 2025 Date: 31.10.2025 Dvs