The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering bail orders and the likelihood of obtaining bail in preventive detention cases, as well as the necessity of placing bail orders before the Detaining Authority and the requirement to consider the possibility of the detenu obtaining bail and repeating similar offenses.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the 4th respondent to produce Kuda Bhaskara Rao who is now detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam District, before this Hon’ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide proceedings dt.14.09.2023 vide REV02-MGST0LWOD/45/2023-MAG-CCLA passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.2246, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dt.15.11.2023 as illegal and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction.”

2. The facts succinctly are thus:

(a) The 2nd respondent by his order in REV02-MGST0LWOD/45/2023-MAG-CCLA, dt.14.09.2023, ordered detention of one Kuda Bhaskara Rao, under Section 3(1) & 3(2) of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Gondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, Act No.1 of 1986) on the ground that the detenu was involved in the following cases:

In the detention order it is also stated that he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(b) Subsequently, on the recommendation of the Advisory Board, his detention was confirmed by virtue of G.O.Rt.No.2246, General Administration (SC.I) Dept., dt.15.11.2023.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Learned Special Government Pleader representing the office of the learned Additional Advocate General filed counter and opposed the writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy and learned Special Government Pleader representing the office of the learned Additional Advocate General.

5. (a) Learned counsel for petitioner assails the detention order on two main grounds. Firstly that, out of seven crimes which have been taken into consideration for ordering detention order, bail was granted to the detenu in six crimes viz., in Crime No.75 of 2018, Crime No.133 of 2021, Crime No.134 of 2021, Crime No.97 of 2021, Crime No.148 of 2021 and Crime No.131 of 2021 and the said fact was admitted in Para 14 of the counter of the respondents.

Learned counsel would further submit that in Crime No. 17 of 2023, bail was not granted and the detenu is in judicial custody. He would further submit that the sponsoring authority has not placed the material relating to the granting of bails in respect of six crimes out of seven before the Detaining Authority and consequently, no discussion was made by Detaining Authority with regard to the consequences of the granting of bail in Cr.No.17 of 2023. He would further submit that bail orders in respect of six crimes were not furnished to the detenu so as to make an effective representation before the State Government/Advisory Board. For this grave procedural violation, he would argue that the detention per s