AN ORDER OF DETENTION CAN ONLY BE VALIDLY PASSED IF THE DETAINING AUTHORITY HAS REASON TO BELIEVE, ON THE BASIS OF RELIABLE MATERIAL, THAT THERE IS A REAL POSSIBILITY OF THE DETENU BEING RELEASED ON BAIL AND THAT ON BEING SO RELEASED, HE WOULD IN ALL PROBABILITY INDULGE IN PREJUDICIAL ACTIVITY.

JUDGMENT

Ninala Jayasurya, J. - Assailing the order of detention in Ref.C1/25/M/2021 dated 11.02.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the detaining authority') as approved by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.313, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 22.02.2021, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to order the release of his father i.e., Rangaswamy Bhaskaran, S/o late Rangaswamy (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') by declaring the said detention order as approved by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

2. The detaining authority passed the order of detention, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) r/w Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, holding inter alia that the activities of the detenu comes under the definition of 'Goonda'.

3. The genesis for passing the said order was registration of six crimes under various provisions of law including crimes of assault or abetment of assault or attempt to murder on the Police and Forest officials and evasion of arrest by absconding and involving in illegal transportation of red sanders from the Government Reserved Forests clandestinely.

4. Apart from the said crimes, a case in Crime No.102 of 2016 of Railway Kodur Police Station was registered against the detenu and he was arrested on 08.01.2021 in connection with the said crime and lodged in Sub Jail, Rajampeta.

5. Heard Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner assisted by Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate and Mr. Syed Khader Mastan, learned Government Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

6. Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, while submitting that the procedural requirements were followed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority as well as the Board and therefore, the same need not be examined, inter alia contends that the order of detention was passed by the detaining authority without application of mind. He submits that no material was placed before the detaining authority to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and on that ground, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. He submits that as on the date of passing of the detention order, the detenu was in judicial custody and in the absence of likelihood of the detenu coming out of the prison, there were no compelling circumstances for the detaining authority to pass the order of detention. He further submits that though the detaining authority refers to the arrest of the detenu in connection with Crime No.102 of 2016 and lodging him in the Sub Jail, the detaining authority is not posted with the relevant information i.e., moving of bail application in the said crime and dismissal of the same on 22.01.2021. He contends that dismissal of the bail application is a relevant aspect and the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority without taking the same into consideration amounts to non-application of mind. The learned Senior Counsel states that though as many as six crimes were registered against the detenu, no applications seeking bail were moved. He also submits that in the absence of any such material regarding bail applications and consideration of the same, the order of detention passed by the detaining authority cannot be said to be based on subjective satisfaction, suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and deserves to be set aside. He submits that the order of detention is liable to be set aside on this sole ground, though it suffers from other infirmities.

In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel places reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha V. State of Tamilnadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244 and the orders passed by this Court in Cheemaparth