IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
A Santhosh Raj – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 24228/2016
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.24228 OF 2016
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-
“…to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in harassing the petitioner and compelling him to give evidence as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and section
161 of Cr.P.C….”
2. Heard Mr.Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No. 3 has been subjecting the petitioner to undue harassment by compelling him to make an admission in relation to Crime No. 42 of 2016, registered at Mandamarri Police Station, Adilabad District.
4. Conversely, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the respondents have not, at any point, harassed the petitioner in the manner alleged in the writ petition.
5. I have carefully perused the record and considered the rival submissions advanced.
6. It is a settled principle of law that no person can be compelled to incriminate himself, as guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which provides protection against self-incrimination. Furthermore, the right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 ensures that no individual shall be subjected to harassment or coercion by the State, save in accordance with due process of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (AIR 1978 SC 1025) categorically held that no person can be forced or coerced into making a statement that may be self-incriminatory. Similarly, in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, the Court emphasized that custodial interrogation must be free from torture, coercion, or undue pressure.
7. In view of the aforesaid constitutional safeguards and judicial pronouncements, and having regard to the facts and materials on record, the respondent police authorities are hereby directed not to compel the petitioner to make any statement against his interest. The petitioner shall not be subjected to any form of harassment, physical or mental, except in strict accordance with law and established legal procedures.
8. In these terms, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Date: 14.08.2025 pld
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.