Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/7654/2026 of Shaik Jani Basha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 29 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO: 7654/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK JANI BASHA,, S/O BADE SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O 4-63,BRAHMANAPALLI, THUMMALACHERUVU GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P-
APHC010145742026
IN TH
MONDAY
TWO
THE HONOURABLE SR
THE HONOURAB
W
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. SHAIK JANI BASHA R/O 4-63,BRAHM DISTRICT. A.P- 522
1. THE STATE OF SECRETARY GE A.P. SECRETARIAT 522233
2. THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT. A.P-522
3. THE SUPERINTEN 522601
4. THE INSPECTOR PALNADU DISTRC
5. THE SUB INSPE STATION, PALNAD
6. THE SUPERINTE RAJAMAHENDRAV E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Y, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 7654/2026 A,, S/O BADE SAHEB, AGED ABO MANAPALLI, THUMMALACHERUVU 2437. AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY NERAL ADMINISTRATION (SC-1) D T OFFICE, VELGAPUDI GUNTUR D R AND DISTRICT MAGISTRAT
NDENT OF POLICE, PALNADU D OF POLICE, PIDUGURALLA POL IT. A.P-522601 ECTOR OF POLICE, PIDUGURA DU DISTRICT. A.P-522601 ENDENT OF POLICE, CENTR VARAM. A.P-533101 ...RES DESH
DRANATH ROY GEDELA UT 30 YEARS, U
GUNTUR ...PETITIONER Y ITS CHIEF DEPARTMENT DISTRICT. A.P- E, PALNADU DISTRCT. A.P- ICE STATION, ALLA POLICE RAL PRISON, SPONDENT(S):
CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.7654 of 2026
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 appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Habeas Corpus, declaring the action of the Respondents in detaining the detenue without furnishing the order of detention and the grounds of detention as illegal, arbitrary. unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Preventive Detention Act, 1970 and Consequently direct the Respondents to produce the detenue i.e., Shaik Mabu Jani, S/o Bada Shaihab, Aged about 33 years, Occ Business, R/ R/o 4-63,brahmanapalli, Thummalacheruvu, Guntur District before this Hon'ble Court and set aside the order of detention purportedly passed under the Andhra Pradesh Preventive Detention Act, 1970, and release the detenue forthwith from illegal detention from the jail of the 6th Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL
CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.7654 of 2026
The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
This writ petition for Habeas Corpus is filed on the ground that without furnishing the order of detention that the detenu has been illegally detained by the respondents.
2. Learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents, on written instructions, submits that a detention order was in fact passed against the detenu by name Shaik Mabu Jani son of Bada Shaihab on 11.03.2026 and pursuant to the said order passed against him that he was taken into custody under the Preventive Detention Act. He has also placed on record the written instructions received from the Inspector of Police, Piduguralla Police Station, to that effect. It contains copy of the order of preventive detention passed against the detenu.
3. In that view of the matter, as an order of preventive detention was passed against the detenu and he has been taken into custody pursuant to the said order of preventive detention passed against him, if at all the petitioner or the detenu feels aggrieved by the same, they have to file a writ petition challenging the said order of preventive detention.
4. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to file a writ petition challenging the said order of preventive detention on any valid legal ground. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
Date: 30.03.2026 MDP