Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
Valluri Durga Rao – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 15187 of 2022
Decided On : 13-10-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M.R.K. Chakravarthy.
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 – Section 3(2), 3(1), 2(b) – Order for preventive detention – Lack of power of Detaining Authority – 2nd respondent has passed detention order on ground that detenue was involved in following five cases and thus he is a ‘Bootlegger’ within meaning of Section 2(b) of Act 1 of 1986 and his activities are prejudicial to maintenance of public health and public order – Held, Jurisprudence expounds principle that if detenue was already enlarged on bail in cases in which he was involved and which were placed before Detaining Authority seeking preventive detention, sponsoring authority shall also place bail applications and bail orders along with record and Detaining Authority shall invariably consider same for forming opinion – However, as stated supra, 2nd respondent has not considered them in right perspective and thereby great prejudice is caused to detenue and in court view detention order is unjust and illegal and required to be set aside. Since ground is enough to hold that impugned detention order is unsustainable on law and facts, other grounds projected by petitioner are not necessary to be discussed – Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. In this Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner prays for release of his brother Valluri Hari Krishna S/o Valluri Nageswara Rao R/o Venkatanagaram Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, East Godavari District who was detained and lodged in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram as per the detention order vide proceedings in ROC No. MAGRL/48/2022, dated 28.04.2022 of the 2nd respondent under Section 3(2) r/w 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986) [for short ‘the Act 1 of 1986’] and later confirmed by the 1st respondent as per the proceedings in G.O.Rt. No. 1273, dated 01.07.2022.
2. The 2nd respondent has passed the detention order dated 28.04.2022 on the ground that the detenue was involved in following five cases and thus he is a ‘Bootlegger’ within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act 1 of 1986 and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order:
| 1. | Cr. No. 36/2021, dated 15.01.2021 u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 of North SEB Station, Rajhamahendravaram. |
| 2. | Cr. No. 532/2021, dated 07.08.2021, u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 of North SEB Station, Rajhamahendravaram. |
| 3. | Cr. No. 729/2021, dated 23.10.2021 u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 of North SEB Station, Rajhamahendravaram. |
| 4. | Cr. No. 767/2021, dated 11.11.2021 u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(A) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 of North SEB Station, Rajhamahendravaram. |
| 5. | Cr. No. 35/2022, dated 12.01.2022 u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 of North SEB Station, Rajhamahendravaram. |
3. The detention order is challenged in this writ petition on the grounds that the detenue is an innocent person and not committed any of the offences mentioned in the detention order; the cases in which he is involved can be effectively dealt with under the general law and his activities are not prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order; the copies of the order of detention as well as grounds of detention and other materials relied upon by the respondent authorities were not supplied to the detenue in time and some copies which were supplied were not legible and there is no pagination; in all the five crimes, which were taken as a ground for issuing detention order, the detenue was granted bail even before the date of detention order and the said fact was not taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority while passing the detention order; the confirmation order was not served on the detenue and it was furnished to him only in the Court during the course of hearing in the writ petition; the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind in issuing the detention order, inasmuch as, of the five crimes which were taken as a ground to pass detention order, in three crimes i.e. Crime Nos. 36/2021, 532/2021 and 729/2021, the detenue was not physically present at the time of alleged offence but he was falsely implicated on the basis of alleged confession of co-accused, whereas in Crime No. 35/2022, even according to the FIR and Mediators’ report, none of the accused were present at the scene of offence as they ran away on seeing the police but however crime was registered against the present detenue and others on the strength of the mediators’ report and it is not mentioned in the said report as to how the police and mediators could know that the detenue and other accused committed the offence. There was absolutely no identification of the persons who committed the offence, still the crime was registered. Taking this fact into consideration Hon’ble High Court has granted him anticipatory bail. Thus the detention order is per se illegal
