The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a habeas corpus petition is not maintainable once the detenu is released while the petition is pending. The Court dismissed a wife’s plea alleging her husband was illegally held by Kurnool police. It also declined compensation, holding that no finding of illegal detention could be recorded.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar passed the order on September 30, 2026.
Background
The petitioner, Konda Vijaya Lakshmi, sought production and release of her husband, Kosire Venkataram Reddy. He had been served a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in Crime No. 41 of 2026, registered at Kurnool IV Station. The case concerned alleged offences under Sections 196(1)(a), 299 and 356(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
He was initially directed to appear on March 5, 2026. On his request for time, he was asked to appear on March 10, 2026, and he did so. The writ petition was filed on March 11, 2026, and he was set free at about 5:30 p.m. that same day.
Arguments
Advocate Papudippu Sashidhar, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the detenu was not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours. He contended that the detention was therefore illegal. He submitted that the petition remained maintainable despite the release, and that nothing on record showed a release on March 10. Relying on Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J&K, he sought compensation for violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. He also argued that the burden lay on the police to show the date and time of release.
Assistant Government Pleader J. Krishna Praneeth, appearing for the respondents, relied on the counter affidavit of the Station House Officer. He submitted that the detenu had not produced the relevant mobile phone on March 10. He was served a notice under Section 94 BNSS that day, directing him to return on March 11 with the phone, and was set free on March 10 itself. He appeared again on March 11 and was released that day. The State argued the petition had become infructuous, and that there was no specific prayer or case for compensation.
Court’s Findings
Relying on Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, Mrs. Parvathi and P. Subramanyam, the Bench examined whether the petition survived the release. It held that the relevant question is whether the detenu remains in detention on the date the petition is considered. The Court observed:
“But, where the detention itself has come to an end, no inquiry is required with regard to the legality of the detention as on the date of filing of the petition, since there have been subsequent intervening events between the date of filing of the petition and the date of hearing.”
The Court distinguished Tirupathi Bharathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh. In that case, compensation of ₹10,000 was awarded after an adverse inference was drawn from the police’s failure to produce CCTV footage from all cameras. The Bench noted that no such direction to produce footage had been issued here. It added that no Section 94 BNSS notice had been given in that case.
The Bench held that whether the detenu was released on March 10 and returned on March 11 were questions of fact. It acknowledged that no release record had been produced, but held:
“In the presence of such a notice neither we can draw an inference that the detenu was continuously kept in detention from 10.03.2026 till 11.03.2026 nor it can be held that there was any illegal detention.”
On compensation, the Court accepted that it may be granted under Article 226 for violation of the right to life and liberty. However, it added:
“However, for that, a specific finding must be recorded as to illegal detention in violation of fundamental rights, which, in the present case, as observed above, cannot be recorded in favour of the detenu.”
Outcome
The writ petition was dismissed without costs. The Court clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from availing any remedy available in law before the appropriate forum. Pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Case Title: Konda Vijaya Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7001 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar
Date: 30.09.2026
