APHC010189472026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO:9522/2026 Between: 1. NAMALA RADHA, W/O NARASIMHARAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. 2-28, RAJUPALEM, RAJUPALEM MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P.- 522412. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH-522238 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. - 522503. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARSARAOPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P.-522601. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARSARAOPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P.-522601. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SATTENAPALLI RURAL POLICE STATION, SATTENAPALLI, PALNADU 2 DISTRICT, A.P. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJUPALEM POLICE STATION, RAJUPALEM, BELAMKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P. -522411. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIDUGURALLA POLICE STATION, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P. - 522414. 8. THE CONSTABLE, RAJUPALEM POLICE STATION, RAJUPALEM, BELAMKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P. - 522411. 9. THE HOME GUARD, RAJUPALEM POLICE STATION, RAJUPALEM, BELAMKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P. - 522411. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BHUVANAGIRI SUBRAMANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.9522 of 2026 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the mother of the corpus by name Namala Srinivas. According to the case pleaded by her, respondent Nos.8 and 9, who are Constable and Home Guard of Rajupalem Police Station, have taken the corpus into custody illegally on 06.04.2026 at about 5.00 p.m. at his house without there being any crime registered against him and since then he has been illegally detained by the respondent police officials. Therefore, the petitioner sought direction to the respondent police officials to produce the corpus before the Court and then to set him at liberty. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, on written instructions which are now placed on record, submits that a crime was registered against the corpus by name Namala Srinivas in Crime No.34 of 2026 on 02.04.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 75(1), 332, 351(1), 127(2) & 76 of BNS in Macherla Town Police Station and the corpus was arrested in connection with the said crime on 08.04.2026 at 9.15 p.m. near Railway Station of Macherla Town and thereafter, he was produced before the concerned Magistrate today i.e., on 09.04.2026 at 7.30 a.m. and he was remanded to judicial custody and he is now lodged in Sub Jail, Gurazala. A copy of the F.I.R. registered against the corpus and a copy of the intimation given 4 relating to his arrest to the relative of the corpus by name Chevula Naganjaneyulu and a copy of the remand report are also produced before the Court. 4. Therefore, as the corpus was arrested in connection with a crime registered against him and he was produced before the concerned Magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody, it cannot be said that he has been illegally detained or confined by the respondent police officials. 5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the corpus was in fact taken into custody on 06.04.2026 and denied that he was taken into custody on 08.04.2026, to a pointed question whether the petitioner could produce any evidence to show that the police have taken the corpus into custody on 06.04.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he could not produce any evidence in proof of the said fact. 6. Therefore, as the material on record referred to above proves that the corpus was arrested in connection with a crime and he was remanded to judicial custody thereafter, this writ petition for habeas corpus is not maintainable. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner and the corpus are at liberty to move for bail in the concerned Court. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY ______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 09.04.2026 IBL 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.9522 of 2026 Dt: 09.04.2026 IBL