1 APHC010037812026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 2263/2026 Between: 1. VISHAL KUMAR, S/O. SUNIL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. SUNIL SHARMA, MANPUR, MANPUR, LAKHISARAI, MALIA, BIHAR. PINCODE - 530041. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI. 522503 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE A P, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 522503 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 530020 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, P.M. PALEM P.S., VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 530041. 5. MOTURI RAMA LAKSHMANA RAO, S/O. UNKNOWN, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, D.NO. 25-102/3, NAGARAM PALEM, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. PINCODE- 530041. 2 ...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 topleased to Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, directing Respondents 3 and 4 to produce Moturi Reetika before this Hon'ble Court forthwith and Set her at liberty and permit her to make an independent statement before this Hon'ble Court and Provide necessary police protection to the detenue, if she so desires and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAIDILIP A Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL 3 The Court made the following: ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This writ petition for Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondent-police officials to produce the corpus by name Moturi Reetika (hereinafter referred to as “corpus”) before the Court and to set her at liberty and to provide necessary police protection to her. 2. Heard Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri A.Sai Dilip, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General for official respondents 1 to 4. Notice on respondent No.5, who is the father of the corpus is served and he is present before the Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the resident of Bihar State and the corpus is the resident of Visakhapatnam in the State of Andhra Pradesh and he got acquaintance with her through Instagram in the year 2022 and they both developed a close relationship with each other and they are frequently communicating with each other through video calls and audio calls. Thereafter, they met for the first time on 16.03.2023 in the Railway Station of Visakhapatnam and on 17.03.2023, both of them went to Bangalore voluntarily and they both lived together for about 20 days in Bangalore. While they are living in Bangalore together, the police of P.M.Palem Police Station of Visakhapatnam along with the parents of the corpus came to Bangalore and brought both the petitioner and the corpus to the police station in Visakhapatnam. The 5th respondent, who is the father of the corpus, informed that after the corpus completes her studies, that he would arrange for their marriage and assured that he will allow her to communicate with the petitioner over phone. Believing said words of the 5th respondent, the petitioner also resigned his job in PA Star Security Services and went to his home town. The 4 petitioner and the corpus are communicating with each other. Thereafter, all the said communications are being monitored by respondent No.5. The petitioner has recorded his conversations with the corpus. While so, the corpus has stopped communicating the petitioner at the behest of her father, who is the respondent No.5 and respondent No.5 informed the petitioner that the corpus is now not interested in the petitioner. But the corpus informed the petitioner through Instagram that she was made to be silent by her father by force. Thereafter, on 14.09.2025, the petitioner received information from an unknown number that the corpus has attempted suicide by consuming sleeping pills and was under severe mental stress. So, the petitioner visited the house of the corpus on 15.09.2025 and she informed him that she was under continuous mental stress and she is in the control and confinement of the 5th respondent. It is stated that on 24.12.2025, when the petitioner has contacted the 5th respondent to enquire about the wellbeing of the corpus, that he threatened him to file false criminal cases against him and since August, 2025, the corpus also stopped attending her college. So, alleging that she is apprehending danger to her life and her personal liberty, he lodged a complaint before the National Commission for Women through the complaints registration and monitoring system and the Commissioner of Police was directed to submit a report and the same is pending at present. It is stated that the corpus is a major woman, aged about 24 years and she is in the illegal confinement of respondent No.5. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid relief. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission before the Court on 28.01.2026, while issuing notice to respondent No.5, as the learned Assistant Government Pleader has taken notice for official respondents and sought time to seek instructions, we have also directed the respondent No.4-Station House Officer of P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, to produce the 5 corpus before the Court and ordered to list the matter today i.e. on 11.02.2026. 5. Pursuant to the notice served on respondent No.5, who is the father of the corpus, he is present before the Court. Police have also produced the corpus before the Court. 6. We had a personal interaction with the corpus in isolation in our Chamber. She admitted that she is now aged about 24 years and her date of birth is 30.06.2001. Therefore, she is a major at present. She further stated that she got acquaintance with the petitioner through Instagram and initially they both liked each other and had communication with each other over phone and internet and that they met each other in the month of March, 2023 and at that time, as she is interested in the petitioner, that she went along with him from Visakhapatnam to Bangalore voluntarily without informing her parents and when they were staying together in a house in Bangalore, that the police came to Bangalore and brought her and the petitioner to the police station in Visakhapatnam along with her parents, who are waiting at Bangalore Railway Station and as a girl missing case was registered on the report lodged by her father, that at her instance, her custody was given to her father by the police and since then, she is living with her parents. To a pointed question whether she is now willing to go with the petitioner, she has clearly and unequivocally stated that she is now not interested in him and she has decided to sever her relationship with him after she spent time with him for 20 days in Bangalore. She refused to go with the petitioner and continue her relationship with him. It is stated by her that no marriage between both of them took place. 7. Thereafter, we have called the petitioner and allowed both the petitioner and the corpus to talk to each other. The corpus has openly informed the petitioner that she is not interested in him and she does not want to continue 6 her relationship with him. She has also stated that she intends to live with her parents only and take care of her future. 8. When questioned whether she has voluntarily taken the said decision to discontinue her relationship with the petitioner or whether there is any compulsion on her or threat or force from anyone including her parents, she has clearly stated that there is no threat or compulsion from her parents or from anyone and that she has taken the said decision voluntarily with her free will and volition. Therefore, we are satisfied that she has not taken the said decision to discontinue her relationship with the petitioner under duress and that she has voluntarily taken the said decision. 9. When questioned whether she has been forcibly or illegally confined in the house by her parents, she has stated clearly that she is not confined by her parents in the house and she has been voluntarily living with them. Therefore, when it is not found that she has been illegally detained or confined by respondent No.5 as alleged by the petitioner, this writ petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable when the corpus with her free will and volition has been living with her parents. 10. The petitioner is a major, aged about 24 years. Therefore, she got every right to take her own decision as to with whom she has to stay and live and she got right to take decision on her future. As she clearly expressed her decision stating that she intends to stay and live with her parents and she want to take care of her own future and that she does not want to join the company of the petitioner, no direction as sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition can be given. 11. Therefore, in view of the decision voluntarily taken by the corpus, which is recorded above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The corpus is at liberty to accompany her father, who is the respondent No.5 as per her wish and stay and live with him. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 11.02.2026 ARR 8 34 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 2263/2026 Date: 11.02.2026 ARR