The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday set aside a rowdy sheet opened against six residents of Eluru, observing that the police had acted mechanically and without any supporting pattern of habitual criminal conduct. The brief but pointed hearing before Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa saw the bench repeatedly question the foundation of the police’s decision.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Modifies Compensation in Una Road Accident Case, Says
Background
The petitioners - all residents of Amudala Appalaswamy Colony and nearby localities - approached the court seeking a Mandamus to stop the police from insisting that they appear regularly before the Eluru I Town Police Station. The rowdy sheet had been linked to a single case registered in 2021 under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC, relating to an alleged attempt to murder.
Their counsel, P.B. Narasimha Murthy, argued that the men had been “falsely dragged” into the case and, more importantly, the alleged offence did not relate to disruption of public peace. “One FIR cannot become a ticket for lifelong surveillance,” he contended during the hearing.
Delhi High Court Rejects 30-Year-Old Suit's Late Amendment Plea, Calls It Attempt to Delay Trial and
Court’s Observations
Justice Pratapa referred to the earlier ruling in Sunkara Satyanarayana vs State of Andhra Pradesh, where the High Court had made it clear that rowdy sheets cannot be opened casually. “The bench observed, ‘A person cannot be branded a rowdy unless their conduct shows a tendency to disturb public peace or tranquility,’” echoing the principle that police action must be rooted in evidence and not assumptions.
The State’s counsel conceded that except for Crime No.115/2021, no other cases were pending against the petitioners. This appeared to weigh heavily with the court. At one point, the judge remarked that continuing a rowdy sheet in such circumstances “is nothing short of an abuse of process,” noting that the police had a responsibility to review such sheets annually and apply real scrutiny, not rubber-stamp continuations.
DMRC's 5G Rollout Move Upheld: Delhi High Court Rejects Crest Digitel Appeal Against Nomination
Decision
Holding that a single pending criminal case cannot justify long-term branding of citizens as habitual offenders, the High Court allowed the writ petition. The rowdy sheet was formally set aside, and the police were directed to close the proceedings.
The order ended there, without costs and with all pending miscellaneous petitions deemed closed.
Case: Nagireddi Satish Kumar & Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati
Judge: Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Petition Type: Writ Petition (Article 226)
Date: 17 November 2025
