SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 452

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
B.S. Bhanumathi, J.
Bhuma Akila Priya – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2809 of 2023
Decided On : 04-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Nerella S V Ravi Teja, Advocate

Confinement under Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be challenged through a Writ Petition if it is alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of constitutional rights.

Headnote:

The petitioner, an agent of Smt Bhuma Akhila Priya, filed a Writ Petition challenging her confinement under Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner was directed to remain at home due to alleged potential law and order issues arising from a proposed debate with a sitting MLA. The court disposed of the petition after the petitioner undertook not to attend the proposed meeting, leading to the immediate withdrawal of the notice by the police. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

JUDGMENT

B.S. Bhanumathi, J. - This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of the writ of mandamus declaration of the action of the Inspector of Police, Allagadda Police Station, Allagadda Town i.e., the 4th respondent in confining the petitioner under the guise of notice dated 04.02.2023 issued under Section 151 of Criminal Procedure Code by the 4th respondent and in not giving an opportunity to submit an explanation as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to suspend the impugned notice and thereby giving the petitioner liberty to move.

2. This petition is moved by L.A.M.Prem Chandu S/o Maria Dasu, H.No.3-10, Boripalem village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh describing himself as the agent of the petitioner Smt Bhuma Akhila Priya W/o Bhargav Ram resident of H.No.8-1-65, Allagadda Town, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. L.A.M.Prem Chandu says that he is acquainted with the facts of the case and has been given instructions for filing this petition on behalf of Smt Bhuma Akhila Priya. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the letter of authorization has been received through WhatsApp from the cell phone No.7036228947 to the Cell phone No.9959620871 and that due to paucity of time and long distance to be travelled by the petitioner to reach the High Court and moreover she has been confined by house arrest, she could not file the petition in person.

3. According to the petitioner, she and her husband were issued notice under Section 151 Cr.P.C. by the 4th respondent today i.e., on 04.02.2023 at 9-45 A.M. directing them to remain at house, on the allegation that they may hold a open debate with Sri Silpa Ravi Kishore Reddy, the sitting MLA, Nandyal constituency and the same may result in law and order problem and therefore, they are directed not to leave the house for 24.00 hours from the time of service of notice on 04.02.2023 to the next day at the same time. The petitioner stated that however, the police were deployed at her house even by 4-30 A.M. on 04.02.2023 confining her to her house and thereby her right to move has been curtailed. It is further contended that she has to attend some ceremonies of her relatives today and tomorrow, but due to high handed and illegal activity of issuing notice, all her personal activities have been restricted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said notice is backed by a case registered in FIR No.7 of 2023 of Allagadda Police Station dated 04.02.2023 under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of a written complaint of K.P.B.Vekat Reddy who is no other than the Sub-Inspector of Police of the same police station. He further submitted that in fact the petitioner did not intend to attend any meeting nor was any meeting proposed and it is only on mere presumptions and surmises, the petitioner was illegally and highhandedly detained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice is given to Silpa Ravi Kishore Reddy, though there is alleged apprehension of both of them hold a meeting. However, he further submitted that the petitioner undertakes not to go to Nandyala town today or tomorrow and the undertaking would be given to the 4th respondent in writing to that effect.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Rayalaseema Region for Home, submitted that as per the instructions received by her, if the petitioner is ready to furnish such undertaking in writing to the 4th respondent, the notice would be immediately withdrawn by the police. She further added that the respondents may be given liberty to take appropriate action in the event of breach of undertaking given.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home represented that Sri.Silpa Ravi Kirsho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top