Telangana High Court
Modem Mallesham S/O.Rajaiah, vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 November, 2025
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
+ WRIT PETITION No.36878 of 2013
Between:
Modem Mallesham ... Petitioner
AND
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
and 5 others ... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 21.11.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment : Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship : Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of
judgment
__________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.36878 of 2013
% 21.11.2025
Between :
# Modem Mallesham ... Petitioner
AND
$ The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
and 5 others ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A. Prabhakar Rao
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri,
Asst. Govt. Pleader for Home
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1. MANU/JK/0325/2025
2. MANU/AP/0224/2022
3. 1998 (4) ALT 284
4. 2000(1) ALD (CRI) 117
5. W.P.No.34211 of 2023 decided on 01.02.2024
3
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.36878 of 2013
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking declaration that the action of the respondents in opening and continuing rowdy sheet against the petitioner more particularly without conducting the mandatory periodical review of the continuation of the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against him.
2. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.
I. BRIEF FACTS:
3. As can be seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition, the respondents opened a rowdy sheet against the petitioner on the ground that he was allegedly involved in Crime No.115 of 2011 of Nekkonda Police Station, Warangal District for the offences under Sections 148, 307, 501, 506 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Crime No.13 of 2012 of Khanapur Police Station, Warangal District for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal 4 Code. According to the petitioner, he was falsely implicated and in the said cases and the opening of the rowdy sheet resulted in constant harassment, including display of his photographs in police stations, frequent summons and prolonged questioning.
4. It is further stated by the petitioner that rowdy sheet was opened against him in the year 2012 and has been continued thereafter without any periodic review by the officials, which is contrary to the police standing orders. It is further stated by the petitioner that at the time of opening the rowdy sheet, only two cases were pending and that a rowdy sheet cannot be opened or continued merely on the basis of pendency of two criminal cases.
II. COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4:
5. In response to the above said averments made by the petitioner, the respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was involved in several cases i.e., Crime No.115 of 2011 of Nekkonda Police Station, Crime No.13/2012 of Khanapur Police Station, Crime Nos.5 of 2000, 102 of 2000, 104 of 2000 and 74 of 2003 of Duggandi Police Station. It is stated that in view of these cases, it became necessary to curb and curtail unlawful activities of the petitioner. Thus, after obtaining permission from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narsampet, Warangal Rural District on 06.05.2012, a rowdy sheet was opened against the 5 petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner has been facing trial in two cases and if rowdy sheet is closed, the petitioner will influence the witnesses and may repeat the offences. Therefore, maintaining the rowdy sheet against the petitioner herein is essential to watch his activities. It is further stated that the respondents had never threatened, harassed and interfered with the life and liberty of the petitioner by calling him to the police station and finally prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES A) PETITIONER'S SUBMISSIONS:
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the very foundation for opening the rowdy sheet has ceased to exist as most of the criminal cases earlier registered against the petitioner have culminated in acquittal or compromise. It is further stated that the petitioner has not been involved in any criminal activity for several years and there is no material to suggest present deviant conduct. It is further urged that the bind-over proceedings initiated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the years 2003 and 2018 have long expired and cannot furnish any justification for continued surveillance. The petitioner also asserts that the rowdy sheet has remained in force for more than twelve years without any periodic review as mandated by the Police Standing Orders. According to the petitioner, continuation of such surveillance, in the 6 absence of fresh material or recent incidents, amounts to an arbitrary and disproportionate intrusion into his right to privacy and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
B) RESPONDENTS' SUBMISSIONS:
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submits that although several of the earlier criminal cases have ended in acquittal or compromise, the bind-over proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are still pending and have not yet reached finality. It is contended that these preventive proceedings were initiated in view of apprehensions expressed at the relevant point of time regarding possible breach of peace and until such proceedings are formally concluded, it would not be appropriate to close the rowdy sheet. According to the respondents, continuation of rowdy sheet is necessary to ensure that the petitioner does not indulge in conduct that may disturb public tranquility and that premature closure may weaken the preventive mechanism contemplated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. During the course of hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions from the Sub - Inspector of Police, Duggondi Police Station, Warangal District, 7 submitted that the petitioner has been involved in the following criminal cases:
Sl.No. Crime Number Offence under Remarks
and Police Sections
Station
1 115 of 2011 of 14, 307, 501, Crime was
Nekkonda 506 r/w. numbered as
Police Station Section 149 of S.C. No.419 of
IPC 2013, wherein
the Petitioner
was acquitted
on 06.09.2021
2 13 of 2012 of 147, 148, Crime was
Khanapur 307 r/w. numbered as
Police Station Section 149 of S.C.No.237 of
IPC 2013, wherein
the petitioner
was acquitted
on 16.03.2020
3 5 of 2000 of 324 r/w. 34 of Case was
Duggondi IPC compromised
Police Station
4 102 of 2000 of 148, 147, 341 The petitioner
Duggondi r/w. 149 and was acquitted
Police Station Section 3 of on 03.02.2004
PDPP Act
5 104 of 2000 of 147, 148, 452, The petitioner
Duggondi 352, 427, 506 was acquitted
Police Station r/w. 149 of IPC on 03.02.2004
6 74 of 2003 of 108 of Cr.P.C. Bind over
Duggondi
Police Station
7 131 of 2018 of 108 of Cr.P.C. Bind over
Duggondi
Police Station
8 75 of 2019 of 324, 341 Case was
Duggondi r/w.34 of IPC compromised
Police Station at Lok Adalath
on 10.02.2023
vide
C.C.No.460 of
2019
8
9. From the above tabular statement, it is revealed that out of eight cases registered against the petitioner, only two bind over cases before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Duggondi, are pending against him and the remaining six cases were either ended in acquittal or resulted in compromise. Thus, admittedly, the said two crimes i.e., Crime No.115 of 2011 of Nekkonda Police Station, Crime No.13 of 2012 of Khanapur Police Station including Crime Nos.5 of 2000, 102 of 2000, 104 of 2000 and 74 of 2003 of Duggandi Police Station, based on which the rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner, ended either in acquittal or compromise. IV. POINT FOR DETERMINATION:
10. In view of the pleadings and submissions, the only point that arises for consideration is:
Whether continuation of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner, despite acquittal/closure/compromise of most of the cases and without proper periodic review, is legal, justified and in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirements?
V. ANALYSIS: A. Requirement of periodical review - Implications of Article 21 of Constitution of India:
11. The primary contention of the petitioner is that continuation of the rowdy sheet mechanically over a decade without any periodical review, is in violation of his right to privacy and personal 9 liberty offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Dilawar Singh v. Union Territory of J & K and others 1 the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu held that maintaining of a history sheet/rowdy sheet for a long time violates not only right to privacy under Article 21 but also other fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
B. Rowdy sheet cannot be continued after acquittal:
12. Out of eight criminal cases registered against the petitioner, six cases were disposed of by acquittal or compromise. A rowdy sheet cannot be sustained merely because cases were once registered, particularly when such cases have resulted in acquittal.
The essence of a rowdy sheet is contemporaneous criminal activity demonstrating threat to public order. When the very basis on which the sheet was opened has ceased to exist, continuation become arbitrary. In Marri Gopi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2 the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh observed that there is absolutely no justification in continuing the rowdy sheet that was opened against the petitioner when the cases registered against the petitioner were resulted in acquittal. 1 MANU/JK/0325/2025 2 MANU/AP/0224/2022 10
13. Even the bind-over proceedings initiated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the years 2003 and 2018 cannot justify the continued maintenance of the rowdy sheet against the petitioner. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are preventive, time-bound to secure good behavior for a limited period. They cannot form the basis for perpetual surveillance. The Police Standing Orders themselves contemplate that where a rowdy sheet is opened in connection with a bind-over order, its continuation must be reviewed immediately upon expiry of the bond period. The one year period prescribed in connection with 2003 proceedings expired several years ago. There is neither any allegation of breach of the bond conditions nor any subsequent conduct indicating likelihood of disturbance of public peace. Reliance on such exhausted proceedings to continue the rowdy sheet is impermissible. In Patti Eswara Reddy v. Superintendent of Police and others 3 the High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh held that a person cannot be branded as a habitual offender merely because he was implicated in two or more cases, particularly when no conviction was recorded and observed as under:
"A Learned single Judge of this Court in Majid Babu and Anr. v. Home Secretary, Govt. of A.P. and Ors. 1997 (2) ALT 904 has considered the question, with regard to the persons who can be stated 3 1998 (4) ALT 284 11 to be habitually committing crimes, referred to in Clause (1) (a) of P.S.O.742. It was held therein that merely because two persons were figured as accused in respect of two crimes registered by police, no inference can be drawn that they are habitual offenders. In the instant case the petitioner has not been convicted by any Court in respect of any of the crimes that have been registered against the petitioner. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the petitioner cannot be regarded as a habitual offender under Clause (1) (a) of Police Standing Order 742.
6. As regards persons bound over under Sections 106 and 107 Cr.P.C. are concerned, it cannot be denied that a Rowdy Sheet in respect of such persons can be opened under Police Standing Order, 742 in terms of Clause (1) (b) thereof. However, the point for consideration is: whether once an Order Under Section 107 Cr.P.C. is passed, whether such persons shall continue indefinitely on the Rowdy Sheet? In the instant case, the period of one year for which the petitioner was bound over Under Section 107, Cr.P.C. elapsed in 1982 and for fifteen years thereafter the petitioner is being continued on the Rowdy sheet on the basis that he had been bound over Under Section 107 Cr.P.C. I cannot accede to the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Home that the only requirement under Clause
(b) is that the person is bound over Under Section 107 Cr.P.C. for maintaining Rowdy Sheet against him indefinitely. Clause (b) enumerates one of the conditions for opening a Rowdy Sheet but for continuance thereof, the period has to be reasonable and not arbitrary, muchless indefinite. Under Section 107 Cr.P.C. the bond to be executed for keeping peace is for a period not exceeding one year.
If there has been no violation or breach of the bond and a reasonable period has elapsed, continuing such person on rowdy sheet indefinitely would be unreasonable. Perhaps, a period of two years after the expiry of the bond period as fixed Under Section 107 Cr.P.C. may be considered reasonable for keeping a person on Rowdy Sheet.
7. Continuing the petitioner on the Rowdy Sheet for a period of over fifteen years after date of orders Under Section 107 Cr.P.C. is unreasonable and would be arbitrary and is accordingly so declared." 12
14. There is no justification to continue a rowdy sheet if all cases against a person have resulted in acquittal. It is illegal and unconstitutional to keep a rowdy sheet open when there are no pending criminal cases, as it violates fundamental rights and the right to privacy. It is to be seen that rowdy sheets cannot be opened against any individual in a casual and mechanical manner. Showing a person as a habitual offender and to open a rowdy sheet is not sufficient and in fact, due care and caution shall be taken before characterizing a person as a rowdy. The significant element that has to be seen in the acts of an offender is whether the acts so committed by a person will have a tendency to disturb public peace and tranquility. In the instant case, there is no material to show that the petitioner is responsible for disturbance of peace and tranquility in the society.
C. Continued surveillance must be strictly justified:
15. The legality of continued surveillance through a rowdy sheet must be tested against constitutional guarantees under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which safeguard personal liberty and the right to privacy. Preventive surveillance cannot be treated as a routine administrative measure; it must be supported by credible, contemporaneous material and must be exercised with strict circumspection. This position has been clearly articulated by this Court in Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra 13 Pradesh 4 the Court enumerated the essential safeguards that police authorities must adhere to while maintaining history or rowdy sheets. The relevant observations are as under:
"49. Therefore, in the context of police surveillance against history sheeters and rowdy sheeters, the following principles vis-a-vis right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution would emerge:
(i) If the surveillance is not obtrusive, the same does not violate the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The same does not either in material or palpable form affect the right of the suspect to move freely nor can it be held to deprive the history sheeter / rowdy sheeter of his personal liberty.
(ii) In testing whether fundamental right of free movement or personal liberty is infringed or not, it is to be remembered that infringment should be direct as well as tangible. If surveillance hurts personal sensitivities, the same is not a violation, for the constitution makers never intended to protect mere personal sensitiveness.
(iii) If police surveillance is in accordance with executive/departmental guidelines and not authorised by statute or rules having statutory force, it is for the State to prove that surveillance does not in anyway infringe the fundamental right of the person and that the authorities have followed the guidelines scrupulously in ordering surveillance,
(iv) If the action of the police is found to infringe the freedoms guaranteed to the history sheeter / rowdy sheeter and violates his right to privacy, in that, the surveillance is excessively obtrusive and intrusive, it may seriously encroach on the privacy of a citizen as to infringe the fundamental right to privacy and personal liberty under Article 21 as well as the freedom of movement guaranteed under Article 19(l)(d) of the Constitution of India and the same is impermissible,
(v) Even where there is statutory sanction for surveillance against history sheeter/rowdy sheeter principle (iv) is equally applicable, if the surveillance is obtrusive.
(vi) In either case-whether police regulations are statutory or where they have no statutory force-there should be sufficient material to induce the opinion that the history sheeters/rowdy sheeters show a determination to lead a life of crime which involves public peace or security only. Mere convictions in criminal cases where nothing imperils the safety of the society cannot be regarded as warrange 4 2000(1) ALD (CRI) 117 14 surveillance under the relevant regulations, however broadly and in whatever language the regulation might have been couched,
(vii) In either case-whether the regulation is statutory or non-statutory-
domiciliary visits and picketing by the police should be reduced to the clearest cases of danger to community security, and there can be no routine follow-up at the end of a conviction or release from prison in every case.
(viii) The above principles that emerge from various binding precedents are only general principles. As seen from various decided cases of this Court, opening of history sheet or rowdy sheet can be justified only when it is proved before the Court by the State that based on the relevant material the competent police officer has applied mind with due care and considered all aspects in the light of the law and then ordered opening of history sheet or rowdy sheet or ordered continuation or retention of the history sheet. In the beginning of this Judgment, all the relevant decisions of this Court have been referred to and those principles may also have to be kept in mind.
50. Therefore, on points I and III that arise for consideration, it should be held that maintenance of history sheet/rowdy sheet for a long time violates not only right to privacy under Article 21 and also other fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India."
16. The principles laid down in Sunkara Satyanarayana's case (supra) make it abundantly clear that continuation of a rowdy sheet cannot rest upon stale allegations, long-closed cases, or vague apprehensions, but must be supported by current behaviour showing a live and proximate nexus with public order.
D. Absence of any present material: 17. Significantly, there is also no material on record to
substantiate that any victim has come forward to give complaint against the petitioner on account of threat from him. Except contending that that the petitioner is causing nuisance with general public and due to his fear, no body come forward to lodge any 15 complaint against him, the respondents failed to explain the plausible reasons for continuing rowdy sheet against the petitioner.
18. In Boini Yadaiah vs The State Of Telangana 5 this Court held that where no case is pending and no recent instance of unlawful activity is shown, continuation of a rowdy sheet is improper. This Court observed as under:
"10. In the present case, as per the counter-affidavit, there are no cases pending against the petitioner as on date to maintain the rowdy sheet or to keep surveillance on the activities of the petitioner in any manner. However, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there is every possibility of threat to the public at large. Further, the respondents have not given any specific instance of the petitioner's involvement in the commission of offence subsequent to the closure/acquittal of the criminal cases registered against him.
11. In view of the above and inasmuch as in catena of cases, the Courts are consistently directing the police to maintain the rowdy sheet as per the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents police in maintaining the rowdy sheet against the petitioner even though no case is pending against him cannot be said to be proper."
19. It is pertinent to note that even if the offence is being habitually committed, or attempted to be committed or abet commission of the offence, but not involving a breach of the peace, would not enable and authorize the police officer concerned to open rowdy sheet and classify a person as rowdy. It is in this area, a Police officer has to consider the material available on record and satisfy himself that commission of offence habitually by a person has resulted or is likely to result in breach of peace. The satisfaction is required to be arrived at in an objective manner and on the basis 5 W.P.No.34211 of 2023 decided on 01.02.2024 16 of the material available on record. In the present case, there are no instances established by the respondents to establish that the petitioner was responsible for committing breach of peace and tranquility in the society.
VI. CONCLUSION:
20. In view of the above discussion and considering the principle laid down in the above said decisions, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of rowdy sheet against the petitioner is unsustainable and arbitrary.
VII. RESULT:
21. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to forthwith close the rowdy sheet maintained against the petitioner. This order, however, shall not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioner, if there is any fresh and sufficient material to establish that his movements are required to be prevented as being found indulged in any illegal activities. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Date: 21.11.2025 Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o. AS