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) 24786

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Tangirala Madhavi Devi, J
Routhula Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.27925 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:

The court ruled that while a person must cooperate with police investigations, they cannot be repeatedly summoned to a police station without justifiable cause, particularly when they are merely an acquaintance of the accused and not a suspect.

Headnote:(A) Personal Liberty - Police Investigation - Summoning of acquaintances - Calling a person to the police station solely on the ground of friendship with an accused, without a specific case against them, constitutes an interference with personal liberty. (Para 1, 4)

(B) Procedural Safeguards - Cooperation with Investigation - While a citizen is required to cooperate with the investigation, the police cannot repeatedly summon a person to the station without justifiable cause. (Para 4)

Issues: Whether the petitioner can be repeatedly called to the police station solely for being a friend of an accused in a criminal case.

Table of Content
1. allegations of police harassment based on association with an accused and the state's denial of forced detention. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. balancing the need for investigative cooperation with the protection of personal liberty against arbitrary summons. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

O R D E R

Alleging interference into the personal life and liberty of the petitioner by calling the petitioner to police station and making the petitioner to sit from morning till evening in the police station and trying to arrest the petitioner in connection with Crime No.134 of 2026 of Laxmidevipalli Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District only on the ground that he is friend of the accused in the said crime, this Writ Petition is filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was only on the ground that the petitioner is the friend of the accused in the subject crime and without there being any case against the petitioner, the petitioner was being called to the police station.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on oral instructions, submitted that the petitioner was never called to the police station and he was contacted only as part of investigation into Crime No.134 of 2026.

4. In view of these submissions and particularly the submission of the petitioner that he is ready to cooperative with the investigation, the petitioner is directed to appear before the police concerned on one instance when the police call him and answer their questions and thereafter, the petitioner shall not be called to the police station without any further justifiable cause.

5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

6. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

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