APHC010045762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 2863/2026 Between: 1. MARRI VENKATA REDDY, S/O VENKATAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O 26-28-49,1ST LANE, AT AGRAHARAM, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522238. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, SP OFFICE, GUNTUR 522004. 3. THE NADLAPADU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NALLAPADU 522005. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLAPADU POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522005. ...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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS Declaring the a) action of the Respondents No. 3, 4 and their staff in frequently summoning the Petitioner to the Police Station and harassing him to disclose the whereabouts of A6 (Thiyyagura Srinivasa Reddy) in Crime No. 396/2016, b) action of the staff of 3rd respondent in frequently visiting the house of the petitioner and using abusive 2 language as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14, 20(3), and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently, direct the Respondents 3,4 and their staff not to interfere with the life and liberty of the Petitioner or harass him and his family members by visiting his house or calling him to the Police Station, except by following the due process of law, while directing the 2nd respondent to take action against the erring officials and Pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 to issue death certificate of my husband late Pondrati Dharma rao to the petitioner, pending disposal of Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 2863/2026 ORDER: This writ petition has been preferred seeking certain directions against the police authorities for allegedly harassing the petitioner by repeatedly calling him to the police station in connection with Crime No. 396 of 2016. 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, as the investigation is in progress, the petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No. 2 therein. The police authorities have conducted an enquiry. It is further pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the petitioner has played a vital role in the crime; therefore, he has been directed to cooperate with the investigating agency, but he is not cooperating. 3. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the written instructions of the authorities, it appears that the prima facie allegation of the petitioner has some substance, as he has been called to the police station frequently. However, I make it clear that the petitioner, being an accused, is bound to cooperate with the investigating agency. That does not ipso facto mean that the petitioner, being an accused, is required to make any incriminating statement against him or against any other accused persons. It is the duty of the investigating agency to ascertain the truth by collecting material evidence to prove the allegations against all the accused persons. In that process, the investigating agency or police cannot 4 pressurize any accused person to make statements incriminating himself or any other accused person, contrary to law. 4. Considering the conduct of the police during the course of investigation in the present case, their action in repeatedly questioning the petitioner/Accused No.2 appears to be not proper. 5. Accordingly, the police authorities are directed to act strictly in accordance with law while conducting the investigation and not to call the petitioner/Accused No.2 to the police station for the purpose of investigation in this case according to law. 6. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:05.05.2026. SSA