Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N, J
Rayana Durga Rao, S/o. Venkateswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioners are challenging the in-action on part of the respondents in closing the suspect sheet which was opened vide proceedings No.C.No.28/ACP-WZ/2014, dated 04.06.2014 and C.No.32/ACP-WZ/2014, dated 04.06.2014 respectively.
2. The petitioner in WP.No.18717 of 2024 was shown as Accused No.3 in CC.No.771 of 2014 and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 21.05.2015 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
3. The petitioner in WP.No.18725 of 2024 was arraigned as Accused No.5 in CC.No.771 of 2014 and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 21.05.2015 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have not closed the suspect sheet though there is no other case pending against the petitioners and the only case which was registered against the petitioners ended up in acquittal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that continuation of history sheet against the petitioners is also a social sigma on the petitioners. It is also submitted that continuation of the history sheet against the petitioners though there is no case pending agai
Continuation of history sheets against acquitted individuals without pending cases violates fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.
The continuation of history sheets against acquitted individuals without pending cases infringes upon their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.
Continuation of a rowdy sheet without pending cases infringes on fundamental rights, including the right to dignity and privacy, and lacks legal justification under police standing orders.
History sheets require objective justification and periodic review for extensions under PSO 746-748 to protect Article 21 rights.
History sheets require reasoned extensions based on materials, balancing police surveillance with Article 21 rights.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice when opening history sheets, requiring police to provide individuals an opportunity to contest such actions.
A person cannot be labeled a habitual offender unless they have three convictions, and police must adhere to legal standards when opening history sheets to protect fundamental rights.
The opening of a history sheet against an individual must be in accordance with the relevant police rules and should not offend the individual's fundamental rights, particularly Article 21 of the Con....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
