SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(AP) 373

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
C. Praveen Kumar, Lalitha Kanneganti, JJ.
Lakshmi Devi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10913 of 2020
Decided On : 13-08-2020

Advocates Appeared:
D. Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate

A detention order passed against a person in judicial custody is valid only if the detaining authority records its satisfaction, basing on the material available on record, as on the date of passing of the detention order, that the detenu is likely to be released on bail.

Headnote:

PREVENTIVE DETENTION - DETENTION ORDER - JUDICIAL CUSTODY - TRIPLE TEST - SATISFACTION OF DETAINING AUTHORITY - AWARENESS OF JUDICIAL CUSTODY - POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE ON BAIL - MATERIAL ON RECORD - REQUIREMENTS OF LAW - COMPLIANCE - VALIDITY OF DETENTION ORDER.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the detention order passed against her son, Lakkireddygari Lakki Reddy, under the A.P. Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (the Act), on the ground that it was passed while he was in judicial custody.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the detention order was invalid as the detaining authority failed to satisfy the triple test laid down in Champion R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya, (2015) 16 SCC 253, while passing the order of detention when the detenu was in custody.

Issues: Whether the detention order passed against the petitioner's son was valid, considering that it was passed while he was in judicial custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detaining authority must record its satisfaction, basing on the material available on record, as on the date of passing of the detention order, that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. In the instant case, the grounds of detention and the order of detention did not indicate the awareness of the detaining authority with regard to the detenu being in judicial custody as on the date of passing of the detention order. Further, there was no material placed before the detaining authority to show that efforts were being made by the detenu to get himself released on bail.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent authorities to release the detenu.

JUDGMENT

C.Praveen Kumar, J. - The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus by one, Lakshmi Devi seeking production of her son Lakkireddygari Lakki Reddy, son of late Surya Prakash Reddy (for short, 'detenu') now detained in Central Prison, Kadapa, vide proceedings dated 9.3.2020 in RC.No.MC1/890/2020, by the 2nd respondent herein, as confirmed by the 1st Respondent-State vide G.O.Rt.No.764, dated 1.5.2020, and set him free after declaring his detention as illegal, improper and incorrect.

2. By an order date 9.3.2020, the Collector & District Magistrate, Ananthapuramu District, ordered the detention of the detenu under Section 3(1) & (2) read with 2(b) and 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act') on the ground that he is a bootlegger and goonda within the meaning of the Act and with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. In exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, the Government approved the order of detention vide G.O.Rt.No.596, dated 19.3.2020. As required under Section 10 of the Act, the detenu was produced before the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act. The case was reviewed by the Advisory Board through Video Conference on 28.4.2020. After perusing the representation of the mother of the detenu and the grounds along with the record, the Advisory Board opined that there is sufficient case for detention of the detenu. After due consideration of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the material available on record, the Government, in exercise of its power under SubSection (1) of Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Act, confirmed the order of detention, dated 9.3.2020, passed by the Collector and ordered detention of the detenu for a period of 12 months. It is to be noted here that as on the date of passing of the detention order, the detenu was in judicial custody.

3. The grounds of detention served on the detenu refer to the following seven incidents :

    The first incident relates to crime No.91 of 2014 of Gooty Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. In the said case, the detenu was arrested on 27.3.2014 and later released on bail. After filing of charge-sheet, the case was taken on file as C.C.No.388 of 2014. This case ended in conviction and the accused was directed to pay a fine of Rs.200/- before the Lok Adalat Court.

      The second incident relates to crime No.112 of 2014 of Gooty Police Station, registered for an offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. In the said case, the detenu was arrested on 5.4.2014 and later released on bail. After filing of charge-sheet, the case was taken on file as C.C.No.391 of 2014. This case ended in conviction and the accused was directed to pay a fine of Rs.200/- before the Lok Adalat Court.

        The third incident relates to crime No.80 of 2019 of Ananthapuramu Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 411, 120(b) I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. In the said case, the detenu was arrested on 16.10.2019. In this case charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu, on 20-11-2019 and P.R.C. number is awaited.

          The fourth incident relates to crime No.89 of 2019 of Rapthadu Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. In the said case, the detenu was arrested on 16.10.2019. In this case charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the Court of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu, on 20-11-2019 and P.R.C. number is awaited.

            The fifth incident relates to crime No.233 of 2019 of Ananthapuramu II Town Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 394 read with Section 411 I.

                              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                              1
                              2
                              3
                              4
                              5
                              6
                              7
                              8
                              9
                              10
                              11
                              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                              supreme today icon
                              logo-black

                              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                              Please visit our Training & Support
                              Center or Contact Us for assistance

                              qr

                              Scan Me!

                              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                              whatsapp-icon Back to top