Subscribe

Areas of law › Constitutional & Writs

Personal Liberty & Habeas Corpus

3 judgments

AP High Court ·22 Sep 2026 ·Writ Petition

AP High Court: Habeas corpus does not lie once an arrested person is in custody or on bail; newspaper reports are not proof

The question: Is a writ of habeas corpus maintainable when the detenus are in custody under a judicial remand order that has not been challenged?

Relatives of five men said they were illegally held by forest officials from 5 February 2026 before being produced before the Special Court for red sanders cases at Tirupati on 10 February, and asked for their release and compensation. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition: the men were in custody under a magistrate's remand order and were later granted bail.

Dismissed WP/4318/2026
AP High Court ·25 Sep 2026 ·Writ Petition

AP High Court sets aside a preventive detention order because the detaining authority never considered the detenu's bail orders

The question: Must bail orders in the cases relied on be placed before the detaining authority?

The Collector of Sri Sathya Sai district detained a man under the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 (the 'Goondas Act') on the basis of nine criminal cases, and the State confirmed the order in May 2026. In a habeas corpus writ, a Division Bench of the High Court found that bail orders in two of those cases had not been placed before the detaining authority, and quashed the detention.

Allowed WP/13273/2026
AP High Court ·28 Sep 2026 ·Police Powers

AP High Court: Police cannot keep a 'suspect sheet' on a person facing a single case without showing habitual offending

The question: Can a suspect sheet be opened and continued against a person who faces only one criminal case?

A man who had been named in one criminal case asked the High Court to close a suspect sheet the Visakhapatnam police opened against him in 2019. The police said the sheet was meant to curb his alleged unlawful activity near the Steel Plant. The High Court held that this general claim was not enough, because nothing showed he fell within the categories in the Police Standing Orders or was a habitual offender.

Allowed WP/4108/2023