Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/36075/2025 of Kanikelli Aronu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 January 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE WRIT PETITION NO: 36075/2025 Between: 1. KANIKELLI ARONU,, S/O. BALA RAJU, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. 1 SC COLONY, RAMASINGAVARAM, DWARAKA
APHC010703482025
IN TH
FRIDAY, TH
TWO
THE HONOURABLE SR
THE HONOURAB
WR
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. KANIKELLI ARONU SC COLONY, RAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA
1. THE STATE OF SECRETARY F BUILDINGS, VEL ANDHRA PRADES
2. THE DIRECTOR PRADESH, POLIC DISTRICT.
3. THE SUPERINTE PRADESH.
4. THE STATION HO STATION, ELURU
5. BIRUDUGADDA RAMASINGAVARA ANDHRA PRADES
6. MANUKONDA RA E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUAR O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 36075/2025 U,, S/O. BALA RAJU, AGED 40 YEAR MASINGAVARAM, DWARAKA TIRU A PRADESH. AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY IT FOR HOME DEPARTMENT, S LAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTU SH. GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE CE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAG NDENT OF POLICE, ELURU DISTR OUSE OFFICER, DWARAKA TIURM U DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. RAJU, S/O. PRASAD, AGED 22 AM, DWARAKA TIRUMALA, ELUR SH. AJ KUMAR, S/O NAGESWARA RA DESH
RY DRANATH ROY GEDELA RS, R/O. 1-214, MALA, ELURU ...PETITIONER TS PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT UR DISTRICT, OF ANDHRA GIRI, GUNTUR RICT, ANDHRA MALA POLICE YEARS, R/O. RU DISTRICT, AO, AGED 19
YEARS, R/O. SC COLONY, RAMASINGAVARAM, DWARAKA TIRUMALA, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
7. KANIKELLA RAVI KISHORE, S/O ARONU, AGED 20 YEARS, R/O. 1- 214, SC COLONY, RAMASINGAVARAM, DWARAKA TIRUMALA, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
8. MADDALA DILIP KUMAR, S/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 16 YEARS, R/O. RAMASINGAVARAM, DWARAKA TIRUMALA, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
9. MANUKONDA HIMA KUMAR, S/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 20 YEARS, R/O. SC COLONY, RAMASINGAVARAM, DWARAKA TIRUMALA, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
10. KUNDA SYAM BABU SYAM PAUL, S/O. DAAVID RAJU, AGED 16 YEARS, R/O. 1-124, JAGANNADHAPURAM, DWARAKA TIRUMALA, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ, order or direction directing the respondents to produce my son i.e., the 7th respondent and his friends i.e., the respondents 5, 6 and 8 to 10 before this Hon’ble Court Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General appearing for official respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Alleging that respondent No.4, who is the Station House Officer of Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station has illegally confined respondent Nos.5 to 10 herein and detained them, the petitioner, who is the father of respondent No.7, filed this writ petition for Habeas Corpus, seeking direction to the official respondents to produce respondent Nos.5 to 10 before the Court and then to pass appropriate orders, according to law.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, for admission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, on instructions, that a crime was registered against respondent Nos.5 to 10 in Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station and a notice under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short, ‘the BNSS Act’) was issued to respondent Nos.5 to 10 by the 4th respondent and after respondent Nos.5 to 10 visited the Police Station that after conducting enquiry the 4th respondent has sent away respondent Nos.5 to 10 and they are now at liberty.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also would submit, on instruction, that in a crime that was registered against respondent Nos.5 to 10, the 4th respondent has arrested them and thereafter, produced them before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate has released them with a direction to the Police to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS Act.
5. If that be the case, it cannot be said that respondent Nos.5 to 10 have been illegally confined or detained by the 4th respondent, as alleged by the petitioner.
6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the law has to take its own course in respect of the crime that was registered against respondent Nos.5 to 10. 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: 23.01.2026 MDP