Procedural irregularities and failure to consider the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail rendered the detention order illegal and unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

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 Pangi Bhaskarao, 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 REV02-MGSTOLWOD 82023-MAG-CCLA, dt.25.04.2023, passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent, vide G.O.Rt.No.1155, General Administration (SC.I) Dept., dt.12.06.2023 as illegal and un constitutional and for a consequential direction.”

2. The facts succinctly are thus :

(a) The 2nd respondent by his order in REV02-MGSTOLWOD 82023-MAG-CCLA, dt.25.04.2023, ordered detention of one Pangi Bhaskararao, So.Prahalad, 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.1155, General Administration (SC.I) Dept., dt.12.06.2023.

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 three crimes which have been taken into consideration for ordering detention order, in Crime No.37 of 2022, the detenu was granted bail in Crl.M.P. No.726 of 2023, dated 01.04.2023, by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and the said fact was admitted in Para 10 of the counter of the respondents. Learned counsel would further submit that in remaining two cases i.e., Cr.No.29 of 2022 and Cr.No.34 of 2022, 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 bail in Cr.No.37 of 2022 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.37 of 2022. He would further submit that bail order in Cr.No.37 of 2022 was 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, the detention per se became illegal. On this aspect, he placed reliance on the order of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.17210 of 2022.

(b) Learned counsel would argue that as admittedly detenu was in judicial custody by the date of detention order and in that view, there was no possibility of his committing any further crimes and this aspect has not been discussed and considered by the Detaining Authority in its order. Learned