IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.3012 OF 2020 DATE : 08.04.2026 Between:

Syed Natiq Hussaini …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana and Others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in opening and continuing the rowdy sheet against the petitioner in the month of January, 2019 on the premise that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.255 of 2018 on the file of Matwada Police Station, Warangal Urban District which is the subject matter of SC.No.142 of 2019 on the file the court of VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner forthwith and pass.…”

2. Heard Mr.A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent police have, without any lawful basis, opened a rowdy sheet against the petitioner in January, 2019, on the ground that he was an accused in Crime No. 255 of 2018 on the file of Matwada Police Station, Warangal. The said crime was subsequently numbered as S.C. No. 142 of 2019 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, and ended in conviction. It is further submitted that the petitioner is presently undergoing sentence and no other crime has been registered against him since 2018.

3.2. Learned counsel would contend that, as per the settled legal position, a “habitual offender” must be involved in more than one offence affecting public order. It is further contended that maintaining surveillance over a person who is already in judicial custody is impractical and reflects arbitrary exercise of power. Hence, the continuation of the rowdy sheet is illegal and liable to be set aside.

3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments in K. Suresh Babu v. Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur District, 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 210, and B. Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 387 (AP).

4.1. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a grave and serious offence. It is contended that maintaining surveillance over such a person is justified as a preventive measure under the relevant Standing Orders. It is further submitted that, although the petitioner is presently undergoing sentence, there is a likelihood of his release on bail or otherwise, and considering the gravity of the offence, there is a possibility of breach of peace. Therefore, continuation of the rowdy sheet is justified.

4.2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further relies on the judgment in Mohd. Quadeer and Others v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, (1999) 2 ALT 733, wherein it was held that police authorities are empowered to open rowdy sheets against habitual offenders or persons involved in criminal activities. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is sought.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. The petitioner challenges the opening and continuation of the rowdy sheet on the ground that there is no tenable material to justify such action. Before examining the merits, it is apposite to refer to Standing Order No. 601 of the A.P./T.S. Police Manual, which enumerates the categories of persons against whom rowdy sheets may be opened. These include:

I. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit, or abet offences involving breach of peace, disturbance to public order, or security;

II. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1)(i), and

110(e) & (g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

III. Persons repeate