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)(Tel) 15063

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
E.V. Venugopal, J
Kare Naresh – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.5836 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sravanthi Reddy, Karunakar Reddy
For the Respondents: M. Srinivas

A rowdy sheet can only be opened against habitual offenders. Involvement in a single criminal case does not satisfy the requirement of being 'habitual', and maintaining such surveillance without evidence of repeated offenses is arbitrary and violates personal liberty.

Headnote:(A) Police Manual - Rowdy Sheets - Habitual Offenders - The opening and maintenance of a rowdy sheet requires the person to be a habitual offender who repeatedly commits offences involving a breach of peace or public order; involvement in a single pending criminal case is insufficient to characterize a person as a habitual offender. (Para 9, 10)

(B) Personal Liberty - Arbitrary Surveillance - The continued maintenance of a rowdy sheet in the absence of evidence of habitual criminal conduct or a specific threat to public order constitutes arbitrary interference with personal liberty and is unsustainable. (Para 10)

Issues: Whether the maintenance of a rowdy sheet against the petitioners based on a single pending criminal case is legal and sustainable under the A.P. Police Manual.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to declare the action of the Respondents Nos.2 to 4 in opening rowdy sheet by virtue of Proceedings in C.No.127/SDPO-N/2024 dated 30/04/2024 against the petitionerss based on one crime alleged to have in C.No.121/SDPO-N/204 and 121/SDPO-N/204 Dated 19/09/2024 of 3rd respondent even though the petitionerss were not the habitual offenders and not involved in any breach of peace and public tranquillity and the same is being continued by extending the rowdy sheet without specifying any reason as arbitrary illegal violation of Part III of the Constitution of India as against the Articles 14, 15, 21, 22 and paradox to Police Standing Orders No.601 of APPM and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to close the rowdy sheet against the petitioners in the 3rd respondent police station in the interest of justice.…”

2. Heard Ms.Sravanthi Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in Crime No.168 of 2024 registered under Sections 354-D , 354, 356, 379, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v)(a) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 2015 and a rowdy sheet has been opened against the petitioners though they were not habitual offenders. Under the guise of the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioners, the respondent-authorities are harassing the petitioners, causing repeated summons, nocturnal visits to their residence, and mental distress, thereby affecting their livelihood and disturbing their families.

4. It is submitted that under Standing Orders 601, 602, and 742 of the A.P. Police Manual, rowdy sheets can only be maintained against habitual offenders who repeatedly commit offences affecting public order, peace, or security. The petitioners, having not been involved in any criminal case for more than three years, does not qualify as a habitual offender, and therefore, the rowdy sheet maintained against them is unlawful.

5. Maintenance of rowdy sheets is governed by Standing Order No.601 of A.P. Police Manual, Part-I, Volume II, which reads as under:

“601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 80) may be opened for them under the orders of the SP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.

A. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security.

B. Persons bound over under Sections 106 , 107, 108(1)(i) and 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.

C. Persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years under sections 59 and 70 of the Hyderabad City Police Act or under section 3, clause 12, of the AP Towns Nuisances Act .

D. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass indecent remarks.

F. Persons who intimidate by threats or use of physical violence or other unlawful means to part with movable or immovable properties or in the habit of collecting money by extortion from shopkeepers, traders and other residents.

G. Persons who incite and instigate communal/caste or political riots.

H. Persons detained under the “ AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 ” for a period of 6 months or more.

I. Persons who are convicted for offences under the Representatives of the Peoples’ Act for rigging and carrying away ballot paper, Boxes and other polling material”

6. The period of retention of history sheets of suspects/rowdies is governed by Standing Order No.602 of A.P. Police Manual and the same reads as follows:

“602-

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 Back to top