APHC010470032026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1092 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-7 [3584] Mrs. Musunuri Sowjanya ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 24th September, 2026 Present : Advocate for Appellant : Mr Balaiah B Advocate for Respondents : GP for Home LISA GILL, CJ: This appeal has been filed challenging interlocutory order dated 17.08.2026 in WP.No.23446 of 2026. 2. Appellant – writ petitioner earlier filed Crl.P.No.5658 of 2026 for quashing F.I.R No.58 of 2026 dated 02.07.2026 under Sections 318(4), 319(2) of BNS and 66-D of ITA-2000-2008 registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, and all further proceedings arising therefrom. Vide order dated 24.07.2026, all further proceedings in F.I.R in Crime No.58 of 2 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1092_2026 2026 were stayed for a period of eight weeks. Appellant – writ petitioner thereafter filed WP.No.23446 of 2026 with following prayer: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the high-handed action of the official respondents in conducting a raid on 10.07.2026 at about 11:00 a.m at the petitioner’s office/premises situated at RG Towers, Plot Nos.23 & 24, D.No.52-1/1, Veterinary Colony, Vijayawada – 520008, and in illegally seizing the petitioner’s articles and documents, including 15 laptops, 1 desktop computer, 17 mobile phones, 1 cash-counting machine, cash amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-, a signed cheque book of HDFC Bank, valuable documents relating to clients’ agreements and MOUs, other legal documents, green blank signed papers, and 7 signed non-judicial stamp papers pertaining to the office. The respondents have further seized an external 2 TB Seagate hard drive containing important client data, property- related information, and other confidential business and commercial data, along with several other valuable articles as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, high-handed and unconstitutional, and are violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides being contrary to the constitutional protection under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to forthwith release and return all the aforesaid articles, valuables, documents and other seized material to the petitioner, particularly in terms of the stay order dated 24.07.2026 passed in Crl.P.No.5658 of 2026 and further declare that the raid and consequential seizure conducted by Respondent No.2 on 10.07.2026 are illegal, null and void, being contrary to law and in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental and constitutional rights; and further direct the respondents to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner for the illegal raid, seizure, deprivation and consequential loss and injury suffered by the petitioner, in terms of the principles laid down by the Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in Khushbu and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may 3 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1092_2026 deem fit, proper and expedient in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice and equity. In the interim, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent-Police to forthwith comply with and give effect to the order dated 24.07.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Crl.P.No.5658 of 2026, and consequently direct the release and return of the petitioner’s seized articles and documents including 15 laptops, 1 desktop computer, 17 mobile phones, 1 cash-counting machine, cash amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-, a signed cheque book of HDFC Bank, valuable documents relating to clients’ agreements and MOUs, other legal documents, green blank signed papers, and 7 signed non-judicial stamp papers pertaining to the office. The respondents have also seized an external 2 TB Seagate hard drive containing important client data, property- related information, and other confidential business and commercial data, besides several other valuable articles belonging to the petitioner. It is therefore further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity.” 3. Learned Single Bench while taking cognizance of the matter directed learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home to obtain instructions and writ petitioner was afforded liberty to array de facto complainant/victim in the writ petition. Grievance raised in present appeal is that vide order dated 17.08.2026, learned Single Bench has not directed release of seized articles. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that articles have been illegally seized by the authorities; provision of Section 106(1)(3) of BNSS has not been followed and that police authorities are misusing the articles so 4 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1092_2026 seized, therefore, learned Single Bench should have directed to release said articles immediately. 5. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the appeal while submitting that firstly appeal is not maintainable challenging an interlocutory order and secondly there are no merits therein; passing of an interim order, at this stage, as prayed for, would amount to allowing writ petition itself at the very inception. 6. Mr Umesh Chandra PVG, learned counsel representing de facto complainant/victim, who incidentally has not been made a party till date either in writ petition or in present appeal, has also joined proceedings through video conferencing. He also opposed the appeal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file with their assistance. 8. At this stage, we do not deem it appropriate to cause interference in this appeal assailing an interlocutory order. Writ petition is admittedly pending before learned Single Bench on 28.09.2026 itself. Appellant – writ petitioner is at liberty to raise all arguments raised before us as well as any other available plea in accordance with law before learned Single Bench on said date. It is further directed that respondents shall have clear cut instructions, in the absence of a counter being filed by said date, in order to ensure adjudication of the matter. 5 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1092_2026 9. With above observations and liberty, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. There is no expression of opinion on merits of the matter, which is within the realm of consideration by learned Single Bench. No costs. Pending application(s) if any stand(s) disposed of accordingly. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Vjl Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes / No Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No