Kagithala Lakshmi SanthaKumari vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Advocate - THE ADVOCATE GENERAL — WP/15354/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Status: For Admission.

For Admission

CNR: APHC010291382026

Filing Number

WP/23258/2026

Filing Date

10-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/15354/2026

Registration Date

10-Jun-2026

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

HABEAS CORPUS ( 21 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Kagithala Lakshmi SanthaKumari

    Adv. BHARGAV THIMMARAJU

  2. 2.TiruveedhulaVenkataRatria Mala,

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh Advocate - THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

  2. 2.The Director General of Police

  3. 3.Deputy Inspector General

  4. 4.The Superintendent of Police,

  5. 5.The Superintendent of Police,

  6. 6.The Commissioner of Police,

  7. 7.The Station House Officer,

  8. 8.The Station House Officer,

  9. 9.The Inspector of Police,

Case History

  1. 10-Jun-2026

    K Suresh Reddy,a. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/15354/2026 Outcome: Case adjourned to 15.06.2026. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh heard a habeas corpus petition where petitioners alleged their husbands were forcibly taken into police custody on 08.06.2026. However, the Special Government Pleader stated the detainees were never in custody and are present at their homes, which the petitioners' counsel admitted regarding one detainee. The court listed the matter for further instructions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/15354/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/15354/2026 Outcome: Case adjourned to 15.06.2026. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh heard a habeas corpus petition where petitioners alleged their husbands were forcibly taken into police custody on 08.06.2026. However, the Special Government Pleader stated the detainees were never in custody and are present at their homes, which the petitioners' counsel admitted regarding one detainee. The court listed the matter for further instructions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case