The Detaining Authority must consider the bail applications and bail orders along with the record and form an opinion as to whether preventive detention is essential, especially when the detenue was already enlarged on bail in the cases in question.

JUDGMENT

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. - This Habeas Corpus petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release of her husband Eede Naga Raju, S/o Subrahmanyam, resident of Uppalameta, Jagareddygudem (M), West Godavari District who was detained as per the Detention order in Roc.No.C1/e-1882535/2022 dtd. 26/3/2022 passed by 2nd respondent under Sec. 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.913, dtd. 18/5/2022.

2. The detention order dtd. 26/3/2022 was passed by 2nd respondent on the ground that the detenue was involved in following four cases and thus he is a Bootlegger within the meaning of Sec. 2(b) of the Act 1 of 1986 and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order.

3. The detention order is challenged in this writ petition on the grounds that the detenue was on bail in all the crimes which fact was not taken into consideration while detaining him and further, those cases can be effectively dealt with under the general law and his activities are not prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. It is further contended that there was no proximity or nexus between the 4 cases to order detention.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition.

5. Heard arguments of Sri B. P. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General for respondents.

6. While severely fulminating the detention order, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri B. P. Raju, firstly argued that in all the 4 crimes which were taken as a ground for detention, he was granted bail even prior to the detention order, which indicates that the jurisdictional Court on a prima facie opinion that the detenue did not commit offence, granted him bail in all the cases. In that view, duty is cast on the Sponsoring Authority to place before the 2 nd respondent not only the material relating to the aforesaid 4 crimes but also the bail applications and bail orders for the consideration and satisfaction of the Detaining Authority to the effect that while at large on bail, there is a likelihood of detenues repeating similar offences and acting prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Learned counsel would strenuously argue that on such satisfaction only the Detaining Authority shall pass detention order by giving cogent reasons. Further, it is the duty of the Detaining Authority to furnish the grounds of the detention and also the materials which were considered for passing the detention order. Such materials invariably include the bail applications filed by the detenue and bail orders passed thereon. All these materials have to be furnished in order to enable the detenue to make an effective representation to the Advisory Board or the Government. Learned counsel would lament that in this case the procedure has been flagrantly violated by the authorities inasmuch as, in the detention order there is no mention about forwarding of the bail applications and bail orders to the 2nd respondent and there is no further mention in the detention order about consideration of those bail orders. Most importantly, detenue was not furnished with the bail applications and bail orders and thereby he was denuded of valuable opportunity to make an effective representation before the Advisory Board. Due to such violation, the learned counsel would emphasize, the detention order became illegal. He placed reliance on (1) Abdul Sathar Ibrabim Manik vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 2261 = . and (2) K. Ramamohan Reddy vs. Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh.

7. Secondly, he argued that the crimes in which the detenue was involved and which were taken as a ground for deten