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

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12551

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY,Tuhin Kumar Gedela
B. Subrahmanyam – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 9327/2026



APHC010185262026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3558]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 9327/2026 Between:

1. B. SUBRAHMANYAM,, S/O B. JAYARAMA CHETTY, AGED 73 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 7-626, NEAR RTC BUS STAND, SRI KALAHASTI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P.,PIN. 517644.

2. B. SUJATHA,, W/O B. SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 7-626, NEAR RTC BUS STAND, SRI KALAHASTI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P.,PIN. 517644.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P., PIN. 522238

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, A.P. POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P., PIN. 522501.

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRI KALAHASTI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P., PIN. 517501.

4. THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRI KALAHASTI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P., PIN. 517644.

5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, II TOWN POLICE STATION, SRI KALAHASTI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P., PIN. 517644.

6. BOSU, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O NEAR TIRUMALA HOSPITAL, SRI KALAHASTI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P., PIN.

517644. CELL NO. 9550405806.

...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 to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents no. 3 to 5 to produce the Petitioners Daughter by namely B. Sujatha W/o B. Subrahmanyam, R/o D.no. 7-626, Near RTC Bus stand, Sri Kalahasti Town, Tirupati District, A.P., Pin. 517644 before this Honble Court from detainment of Respondent no. 6 who missed from the Sri Kalahasti Town on 29.01.2026 and set her free to go with parents i.e.. Petitioner no. 1 (Father) and Petitioner no. 2 (Mother), and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SHAIK AFZAL MOHAMMED Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following:

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioners, seeking direction to respondent No.3-the Superintendent of Police of Tirupati District, to produce the corpus by name G.Dhanalakshmi, who is a major, wife of G.Hari Prasad, before the Court, alleged to have been in illegal detention of respondent No.6, who was found missing from the Kalahasti Town from 29.01.2026 and then to set her at liberty.

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Afzal Mohammed, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondent Nos.1 to 5. Since we are disposing of this writ petition, as per the material placed before the Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, as not maintainable, notice to unofficial respondent No.6 is dispensed with.

3. The petitioners are the parents of a woman by name G.Dhanalakshmi. She is a fully grown up woman, aged about 34 years. She is also a married woman. She has been living with her husband by name G.Hari Prasad in Kalahasti Town. They are also blessed with two children during their lawful wedlock. While she was living with her husband G.Hari Prasad, she was found missing from 29.01.2026.

4. It is pleaded in the writ petition by the petitioners, who are her parents that it has come to their knowledge that the corpus, who is her daughter, earlier was in relationship with respondent No.6 and they used to have conversation over phone and that respondent No.6 has taken her away and wrongfully confined her against her will and her whereabouts are not known. It is further pleaded that they have strong reason to believe that their daughter, who is the corpus, is under ill

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top