Telangana High Court
WP/34244/2026 of P.M. Sai Prasad Vs The State of Telangana, on 8 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TANGIRALA MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO: 34244 OF 2026 Between: 1. P.M. Sai Prasad, S/o Pampari Murali Gopal,
[ 321e 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TANGIRALA MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO: 34244 OF 2026
Between:
1. P.M. Sai Prasad, S/o Pampari Murali Gopal, Aged about 35 years, Occ- Business Rio H.No.1-5-84, Gangaputra Colony, Old Alwal, Hyderabad.
2. Paka Shiva, S/o Late Paka Durgaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ- Bussiness, Rlo 9-9214, Vijay Mohan Residency, Venkateshwara Nagar, Beside Tirumala Gardens, Malkajgiri, Telangana 500047
3. Balakonda Rahul Shiva, S/o B. Prabhakar Aged about 26 years,Occ- Advocate, Rlo 2-20-025, Jagad ish Nagar Colony. Rasoolpura, Hyderabad
4. Johnson Shrisunder, s/o Suresh Shri Sunder Aged about 38 years, Occ- Bussiness. No 1-33-225, Plot No 1, G Floor, Lake Castle, Lalamiya Basti, Tirumulgherry, Hyderabad, Telangana
5. T.L.Aditya Raj, S/o T. Hanumanth Rao. Aged about 35 years, Occ- Bussiness. Rlo 1-5-24411, Sree Nagar Colony, Old Alwal, Hyderabad, Telangana
...PETITIONERS
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2. Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri,
3. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Alwal Division.
4. The Station House Officer, Alwal Police Station.
5. Smt. D. Padmini, Wo Ajith Sai, Aged about 28 years, Occ- State BJP SC
Morcha Social media convenor R/o H.No.1-5-117, Plot No.140, Vasavi Enclave, Old Alwal, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased a?4,:":'-'ta4-- ,7
to issue an order, Direction or writ. more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 4 in trying to interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioners and trying to arrest them in connection with FIR No. 9g9/2026 on-the file of P.S. Alwal for the offences under Sections 75, 79, 79, 352, 351(3), 61 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2023. Sections 66C and '66E of the lnformation Technology Act. 2000 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the scheduled castes and scheduled rribes (prevention of Atrocities) Aci, 19g9 without issuing notice u/sec. 35 (3) of BNS and without following the guidelines of Judgment of Arnesh Kumar Vs. state of Bihar reported in AIR 2014 sc 2756 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and the Judgments cf this Hon'ble Cdurt and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 not to interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 9g9/2026 p.s. Alwai for the offences u/section 75,78.79,352, 351(3), 61 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Sections 66C and 66E of the lnformation Technology Act. i0OO a;d sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the scheduted castes and scheduted Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, ',l989 without issuing notice u/sec. 35 (3) Of BNS and without following the guidelines of Judgment of Arnesh Kumar vs. state of Bihar.
Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 not to interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioners/Accused, in connection with FIR No. 989/2026 P.s. Alwal for the offences u/section 7s,79,79, 352,351(3),61 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023, Sections 66C
and 66E of the lnformation Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the scheduled castes and scheduled rribes (preveniion or Rtiocrties; Act, 1989 without issuing notice u/sec. 35 (3) of BNS and vrithout following the guidelines of Judgment of Arnesh Kumar Vs. state of Bihar, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
LA. NO: 'l OF 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SIRIPURAM KESHAVA
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Gp FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent No.S: - -
The Court made the following: ORDER
EFE!E'-
IN THE TIIGH COTIRT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TANGIRALA MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO.34244 0F 2026
CNRNo. HBHCOI 0705622026
DATED:08.10.2026
Between
P.M.Sai Prasad and Four Others
. . . Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana and Four Others.
Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue an Order Direction or Writ more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in trying to interfere with the personal tiberty of the petitioners and trying to arrest them in connection with FtR No.989/2026 on the file of p.S.Alwal for the offences under Sections 75, ZB, Zg, 352, 351(3),61 readwith 3(5) of the Bharattya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 66C and 66E of the Information Technologt Act, 2000 and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(l)(vt)(ii) of the scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 y)ithout issuing notice (Jnder Section 35(3) of BNS and without following the guidelines of Judgment of Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar reported in AIR 2014 SC 2756 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and the Judgments of this Hon,ble Court and consequently direct the respondent No.4 not to interfere with -I
AMD'J w.P.No 34244 of 2026 the personal liberty of the petitioners in connection with FIR No.989/2026, P.S.Alwat for the offences under Sections 75' 78' 79' 352' 351(3), 61 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita' 2023' Sections 66C and 66E of the Information Technolog' Act' 2000 and Sections i(l)(r), 3(1)@ and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduted Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act' 1989 without issuing notice (Jnder Section 35(3) of BNS and without followi'tg the guidelines of Judgment of Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and to pass "
2. The leamed Assistant Govemment Plerader for Home' on oral instructions, submitted that the FIR has been registered against the petitioners vide Crime No'989 of 2026' under Sections 75,78,79,352,351(3),61 read with 3(5) of the Ilharatlya Nyaya Sanh\ta, 2023, Sections 66C and 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 3(1)G), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(ii) oftheScheduledCastesandScheduledTribes(Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989 on 05.10.2026 and the investigation is under progless.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offences registered against the petitioners prescribes less than seven years punishment and therefore, the respor'dent police have
TMD,J w,P.No.34244 ol 2025 to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 20t4 sc 2756.
4. Having regard to the fact that the offences under Sections 75,78,79,352,351(3),61 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 66C and 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 3(1)G), 3(t)(s) and 3(l)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven (07) years, the respondent police are directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,, before taking any coercive steps against the petitioners. The respondent police shall also scrupulously follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (cited supra),, and thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law. The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation in accordance with law. The -
To, PMK TMD,J w.P.No.34244 ol 2026 respondent police shall not summon the petitione:s to the police station except for justifiable cause
5. With the above observations and direr:tions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pend ng in this writ petition, shall stand closed Sd/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat tluildings, Hyderabad.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri,
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Alwal Division.
4. The Station House Officer, Alwal Police Station.
5. One CC to SRI SIRIPURAM KESHAVA, Advocate [OPU3]
6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]
7. Two CD Copies g
HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 08110t2026
ORDER
WP.No.34244 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6a) t i ti. ,E
I 7ja ,.:) 0 g ocT 2026 J r0