APHC010016392026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3558]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.1086 of 2026 Between:

1. D ANDAGIRI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O VENKATSWAMI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER R/O 14-1-239, SANTHI NAGAR, MACHERLA TOWN PAINADU DISTRICT-

522426.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P – 522503.

2. T HE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P –

522503.

3. T HE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALNADU DISTRICT.

A.P – 522601.

4. T HE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GURAZALA SUB DIVISION, PAINADU DISTRICT. A.P – 522601

5. T HE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MACHERLA TOWN POLICE STATION, PALNADU DISTRICT. A.P – 522426

6. T HE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MACHERLA TOWN POLICE STATION, PALNADU DISTRICT. A.P – 522426.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RAMA LAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.1086 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 official respondents 1 to 6.

2. In this writ of habeas corpus, it is the case of the petitioner that his son, by name Dandagiri Jaya Venkataswami, has been illegally taken into custody by respondent Nos.5 and 6 - police officials and that he has been detained by them unlawfully. Therefore, the present writ petition for habeas corpus is filed seeking direction to the respondent police officials to produce the corpus before the Court and then to set him at liberty.

3. In fact, on 08.01.2026, the petitioner has moved a house motion alleging that the corpus was illegally detained by respondent Nos.5 and 6 after taking him away from his house on 06.01.2026 at 11.30 p.m.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, on instructions, stated on that day that a crime was registered against the corpus in Crime No.3 of 2026 in Macherla Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS and that the corpus was arrested on 07.01.2026 in connection with the said crime and that he was being produced before the concerned Magistrate for remand. But, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted on that day that even before registration of the crime, the corpus was illegally taken into custody on 06.01.2026. So, we have directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader to file written instructions explaining the said aspect.

5. Today, learned Assistant Government Pleader has filed written instructions stating that the police have arrested the corpus on 07.01.2026 after 9.00 p.m. in connection with the above crime and thereby, asserted what has been stated before this Court on

08.01.2026.

6. To a pointed question as to whether the petitioner could place any proof to show that the corpus was taken into custody on 06.01.2026 even before registration of the crime, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the petitioner could not substantiate the same by placing any proof to that effect. Therefore, in the absence of any such proof, mere bald assertion made to that effect that the corpus was illegally taken into custody on 06.01.2026 cannot be countenanced. So, there is no evidence on record whatsoever to substantiate the said plea.

7. As the corpus was admittedly arrested in a crime registered against him and he was produced before the concerned Magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody, we do not find any valid legal g