KAMMULA PAWAN SAI vs THE STATE OF AP Advocate - GP FOR HOME — WP/9614/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: APHC010173012026

Filing Number

WP/13939/2026

Filing Date

31-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP/9614/2026

Registration Date

09-Apr-2026

Judge

Balaji Medamalli

Coram

Balaji Medamalli

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

HOME DEPARTMENT (MISC.MATTERS) ( 22 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAMMULA PAWAN SAI

    Adv. VM CHIRANJEEVI KOLLA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF AP Advocate - GP FOR HOME

  2. 2.The SHO (Station House Officer)

    Adv. GP FOR HOME

  3. 3.Mr Nallamilli Balarama Girtsh,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Balaji MedamalliView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/9614/2026 - Kammula Pawan Sai v. State of AP The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of the petition after the police submitted that the petitioner was called only for a PGRS inquiry report and is no longer required. The court directed authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's liberty except through due process of law, addressing concerns that police summons were being used to pressurize the petitioner in a civil gold-trading dispute that was already amicably settled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-May-2026

    Admission (Home)

    Balaji Medamalli

  4. 14-May-2026

    Admission (Home)

    Y. Lakshmana Rao

  5. 04-May-2026

    Y. Lakshmana RaoView PDF

  6. 15-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 31-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/9614/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/9614/2026 - Kammula Pawan Sai v. State of AP The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of the petition after the police submitted that the petitioner was called only for a PGRS inquiry report and is no longer required. The court directed authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's liberty except through due process of law, addressing concerns that police summons were being used to pressurize the petitioner in a civil gold-trading dispute that was already amicably settled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case