Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Gaggera Pullayya @ Bestha Pullaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 April, 2026
1
APHC010390102025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 20088/2025
Between:
1. GAGGERA PULLAYYA @ BESTHA PULLAIAH, S/O G. BALA
GURRAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURALIST R/O
R. JAMBULADINNE VILLAGE, UYYALAWADA MANDAL NANDYAL
DISTRICT.
2. CHENNAMSETTI BASKAR,, S/O C. GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURALIST R/O JAMBULADINNE,
UYYALAWADA MANDAL NANDYAL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI. AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS
AT MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NANDYAL DISTRICT.
4. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, ALLAGADA SUB-DIVISION,
NANDYAL DISTRICT.
5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, UYYALAWADA POLICE STATION,
NANDYAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following ORDER:
The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:
“…to issue a writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of
writ of mandamus declaring the high-handed action of the respondents
in opening and continuing the impugned Rowdy Sheet against the
petitioner’s on the file of Respondent No.5 Uyyalawada Police Station,
Allagadda Rural, Nandyal District, Vide Rowdy Sheet No.143 against the
petitioner’s, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of
natural justice, rule of law and against Article 14 and against the true
letter and spirit of Right to Privacy contemplated under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents herein
to close the Suspect Sheet against the petitioner’s vide Rowdy Sheet
No.143 on the file of Respondent No.5 Uyyalawada Police Station,
Allagadda Rural, Nandyal District and to pass…”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant
Government Pleader.
3. Mr. Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, learned counsel for the
petitioners, submits that respondent police opened a rowdy sheet, without
following Police Standing Orders of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, and
that the rowdy sheet is still continuing, which is violative of Articles 14 and 21
of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, urged to set aside the impugned
proceedings issued by the respondent No.4. The Respondent No.4 has filed
counter in this case.
4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents, submits that a case in Crime No.25 of 2013 for the offence
punishable under Section 147, 148, 324, 307, 509 read with 34 of „the Indian
3
Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „the I.P.C‟) was registered by the Station House
Officer, Uyyalawada Police Station, Nandyal District, against the petitioner.
The present Writ Petitioners are Accused Nos.3 and 4. Later on 02.07.2015
the petitioners were acquitted by the learned III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Nandyala, vide S.C.No.402 of 2014. It is further submitted
that, in order to curb and curtail the unlawful activities of the petitioners in the
vicinity of Uyyalawada Police Station, the Station House Officer, Uyyalawada
Police Station, opened rowdy sheet against the petitioners after obtaining
permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Allagadda Sub-
Division, Nandyal District/respondent No.4, vide proceedings in
C.No.03/SDPO-NDL/2017 dated 04.02.2017.
5. As per Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Order No.601 the following
persons should be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets shall be opened for
them under the order of the Superintendent of Police/SDPO.
i. Persons, who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet
the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace,
disturbances to public order and security.
ii. Persons bound over under sections 106, 107, 108(1) and
110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.
iii. 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 Town
Nuisances Act.
iv. Persons who habitually tease women and girls and pass
indecent remarks including offences U/sec. 354-A, B C and
354D IPC.
V. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offence of
Rape (376, 376, A,C D.E).
4
vi. Persons who have been charge sheeted under the offences
of POCSO Act, 2012 and Acid Attacks (326A and 326B of IPC)
vii. Rowdy sheets for the rowdies residing one police station
area but found frequenting the other Police Stations area, can
be maintained at all such police stations.
viii. 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
including “loan sharks”.
ix. Persons who incite, instigate and participate in
communal/caste or political riots.
x. 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.
xi. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of
assault on public servants, under Arms Act and such other
offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more.
xii Persons on who charge sheets filed under the offence of
murder and attempt to murder (302 and 307 IPC)
xiii. Persons on whom charge sheets filed under the offence of
chain snatching.
xiv. Persons who are convicted under the Representation of
People Act, 1951for rigging, carrying away, damaging ballot
paper, boxes and polling material.
6. On careful perusal of the Standing Orders, the respondent cannot open
or continue a rowdy sheet/suspect sheet against the petitioners, inasmuch as
the petitioners do not fit into any of the conditions enumerated in the said
Standing Orders. The petitioners have not committed any offence mentioned
in the Standing Orders.
7. As seen from the record, the petitioners were earlier involved in the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, and
5
509 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, “the I.P.C.”) in
Crime No.25 of 2013 of Uyyalawada Police Station. After thorough
investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Subsequently, the petitioners were
acquitted on 02.07.2015 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Nandyal,
in S.C.No.412 of 2014. Thereafter, a rowdy sheet was opened against the
petitioners on 04.02.2017, i.e., subsequent to the Acquittal. Ever since
04.02.2017, no adverse antecedents have been reported against the
petitioners indicating involvement in the commission of any offences
enumerated under the conditions mentioned in Standing Orders 601 and 602
of the A.P. Police Standing Orders. Therefore, the continuation of the rowdy
sheet against the petitioners proceedings in C.No.03/SDPO-NDL/2017 dated
04.02.2017 is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional.
8. In pari materia, this Court in Tadiboyina Peraiah @ Mahesh v. State of
A.P1 held that when no crimes are pending against a person and no material
is produced to demonstrate threat to public peace, continuation of a rowdy
sheet under Standing Order No. 601 or 602(2) of the A.P. Police Standing
Orders is impermissible.
9. Similarly, in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, a
Coordinate Bench categorically observed that rowdy sheet cannot be opened
in a casual or mechanical manner. Mere dubbing of an individual as a habitual
offender is insufficient. The Police must exercise due care and caution before
1
2021 (2) ALT (Crl.) 161
2
2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 117 (AP)
6
branding a person as a rowdy, and the essential consideration is whether the
acts of such person have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility.
10. A careful reading of these precedents clearly indicates that the creation
or continuation of rowdy sheet requires strict adherence to procedural
safeguards and regular review by the statutorily designated authorities. The
Respondents are duty-bound to examine whether the alleged misconduct
genuinely affects public peace. In the present case, the Petitioners were
acquitted in Crime No.25 of 2013 on 02.07.2015. In such circumstances, the
continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet amounts to an arbitrary exercise of
power and constitutes an abuse of process.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, declaring that the
continuation of the impugned rowdy sheet against the petitioners is illegal. The
respondent authorities are directed to forthwith close the said rowdy sheet
opened against the petitioners. However, it is open to the police concerned to
invoke appropriate proceedings against the petitioners if they indulges in any
offences which warrant opening of any sheet, such as a rowdy sheet, suspect
sheet, or history sheet.
12. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 08.04.2026
SSA
7
233
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 20088 of 2025
Date: 08.04.2026
SSA