Article 226 | Police Harassment of Accused's Relatives During NBW Execution Violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g) & 21 : Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently addressed a critical balance between police powers and fundamental rights in Kunchala Purna Chandra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The judgment underscores that while police are empowered to execute Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs), they cannot harass or coerce individuals under the pretext of such execution, reinforcing constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, relatives of an accused in a murder case (S.C. No. 179/2018), alleged harassment by the police. They claimed repeated summons to the police station and threats to disclose the whereabouts of Kunchala Ramesh, the accused in a case pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences against Women, Ongole, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioners contended they had no knowledge of the accused’s location and sought protection under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Key Facts

• The accused, Kunchala Ramesh, is facing trial in S.C. No. 179/2018 for an offence under Section 302 IPC (murder).
• A Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, for the arrest of the accused.
• The petitioners, relatives of the accused, reside at Door No. 2-35, Chagallu Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, and Hyderabad, Telangana.
• The police visited the petitioners’ residence and summoned them to the police station, allegedly harassing them to reveal the accused’s whereabouts.
• The petitioners denied knowledge of the accused’s location and claimed the police threatened them with dire consequences.

Procedural History

• 31.03.2026: The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 8074/2026 under Article 226 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to restrain the police from harassing them.

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought:

1. A declaration that the police’s actions were illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
2. A direction to Respondent No. 3 (Station House Officer, Ulavapadu Police Station) to refrain from harassing or threatening them to disclose the accused’s whereabouts.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the police, while executing a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW), can harass or coerce individuals who are not accused but are relatives of the accused, and if such actions violate fundamental rights under the Constitution.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

• The petitioners’ counsel, Mr. Musudi Babji, argued that the police repeatedly summoned the petitioners to the police station and harassed them to disclose the accused’s whereabouts, despite their denial of knowledge.
• The actions of the police were arbitrary and violated the petitioners’ right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), right to equality (Article 14), and right to practice any profession (Article 19(1)(g)).
• The petitioners sought protection under Article 226 to restrain the police from further harassment.

For the Respondents

• The learned Assistant Government Pleader, Sri P. Ajay Babu, submitted that the police visited the petitioners’ residence only once to execute the NBW issued by the competent court.
• The police did not harass or threaten the petitioners; their actions were limited to seeking information about the accused’s whereabouts.
• The police are empowered under law to execute NBWs and seek assistance from citizens, but they must do so without violating fundamental rights.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the balance between police powers and fundamental rights, emphasizing the following principles:

1. Police Powers and Judicial Orders: The Court acknowledged that the police are empowered to execute NBWs issued by competent courts. However, this power is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of constitutional safeguards.

2. Fundamental Rights: The Court reiterated that Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 protect citizens from arbitrary state action. Harassment or coercion by the police, even under the pretext of executing a judicial order, violates these rights.

3. Citizen’s Duty vs. Police Overreach: While citizens have a legal obligation to assist the police in executing judicial orders, this duty does not extend to subjecting them to harassment or threats. The Court observed:

   "Where the police seek information regarding the whereabouts of an accused, it is incumbent upon the concerned person to cooperate and furnish such information, if within their knowledge. At the same time, where a person has no knowledge of the whereabouts of the accused and is nevertheless subjected to undue harassment or coercive measures by the police, such person is left with no efficacious remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts for protection of his or her life and personal liberty."

4. Judicious Balance: The Court directed the police to maintain a judicious balance between executing judicial orders and preserving fundamental rights. It held that while the police may seek information, they cannot harass or threaten individuals who genuinely lack knowledge of the accused’s whereabouts.

The Verdict

The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

1. Respondent No. 3 (Station House Officer, Ulavapadu Police Station) was directed not to harass or threaten the petitioners with dire consequences or coerce them to disclose the whereabouts of the accused.
2. The police were reminded of their duty to execute the NBW without violating the petitioners’ fundamental rights.
3. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
4. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Police Powers Are Not Unfettered

This judgment reinforces that police powers are subject to constitutional limitations. While executing NBWs, the police must ensure they do not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21. Practitioners can cite this judgment to challenge:

• Harassment or coercion by police during investigations or warrant executions.
• Arbitrary summons or threats to individuals who are not accused but are relatives or associates of the accused.

Citizens’ Rights to Protection from Harassment

• Individuals who are not accused but are subjected to police harassment can seek constitutional remedies under Article 226.
• The judgment clarifies that lack of knowledge about an accused’s whereabouts cannot be a ground for police harassment.

Duty to Assist vs. Right to Protection

• While citizens have a duty to assist the police in executing judicial orders, this duty does not extend to tolerating harassment.
• The Court’s emphasis on a judicious balance provides a precedent for challenging police overreach while acknowledging their lawful powers.