Andhra Pradesh HC Closes Habeas Corpus After Police Produce NDPS Detenu Before Court on Same Day

A mother's habeas corpus petition seeking production of her son, arrested by Guntur police under the NDPS Act, was closed after the state confirmed he was produced before a court on 1 June 2026.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, closed a writ of habeas corpus on 1 June 2026 after the state informed the court that the detenu, Sri Kommuri Prakash, had already been produced before the concerned court the same evening. The petition was filed by his mother, Kommuri Sampurna, a resident of Chuttugunta, Guntur, who alleged that her son had been arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guntur East, on 30 May 2026 at around 7:00 a.m. without any intimation of the reasons for his arrest. The state's disclosure that the arrest was in connection with Crime No. 116 of 2026 registered at Old Guntur Police Station under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and that the detenu had been produced before a court, rendered the primary relief infructuous.

The Petition Before the High Court

Kommuri Sampurna filed Writ Petition No. 15112 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. The petition was moved as a house motion and was allotted to this Bench by the Chief Justice.

The petitioner's core grievance was that her son, Sri Kommuri Prakash, had been taken into custody by the 4th respondent — the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guntur East — on 30 May 2026 at approximately 7:00 a.m., without being told the grounds for his arrest. She sought a direction compelling the 4th respondent to produce him before the court and to place on record the legal authority under which he was being held.

Along with the main writ petition, the petitioner filed three interlocutory applications under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first sought production of the detenu and disclosure of the detention authority. The second sought preservation and production of CCTV footage from several locations near Guntur Bus Stand and the office of the 4th respondent, covering the period from 30 May 2026 to 1 June 2026. The specific establishments named included Karthikeya Hotel, an Indian Oil Petrol Bunk, Himani Sweets Shop, and Majiz Centre. The third application sought preservation of blood samples and biological material allegedly collected in connection with the case, with a further direction that such samples be sent to an independent Central Forensic Science Laboratory or an accredited central government forensic laboratory for examination through videography.

State's Response and the Bench's Reasoning

Sri Krishna Praneeth, Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the Advocate General, appeared for the respondent-State through virtual mode. On instructions, he informed the Bench that Sri Kommuri Prakash had been arrested in the early hours of 1 June 2026 in connection with Crime No. 116 of 2026 registered at Old Guntur Police Station. The offences were punishable under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He further stated that the detenu had been produced before the concerned court in the evening of the same day.

The Bench, in its order authored by Justice K. Suresh Reddy, took note of these facts. Since the detenu had already been produced before the concerned court, the primary purpose of the habeas corpus — securing the physical production of a person alleged to be in unlawful custody — had been fulfilled. The court accordingly closed the writ petition.

The petitioner's counsel, Sri P. Mallikarjuna Rao, was heard before the court reached this conclusion. The Bench left it open to the petitioner to avail any appropriate remedies available under law if she had any remaining grievance against the respondents.

Outcome

The Division Bench closed Writ Petition No. 15112 of 2026 on 1 June 2026. The three pending interlocutory applications — IA Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of 2026 — were dismissed in consequence. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue such remedies as may be available to her under law.