Procedural irregularities, including the failure to consider and furnish bail orders, render a detention order illegal and unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.

1. Challenging the detention order passed by the 3rd respondent vide REV02-MGSTOLWOD/34/2023-MAG-CCLA, dated 01/08/2023, against the detenu namely Bodnayak Upendra @ Ramesh S/o Nilo, basing on the three crimes registered against the detenu in various police stations and the consequential confirmation order passed by the 1st respondent vide G.O. Rt. No. 1920, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 25.09.2023, the detenu’s brother filed the present writ petition.

2. Heard Sri Gundala Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader representing the office of the learned Additional Advocate General.

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

4. 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, the detenu was granted bail in respect of all crimes, however by the time of passing of detention order, the detenu is in judicial custody in respect of one matter and the said fact was admitted in the counter of the respondents. He would further submit that the sponsoring authority has not placed the material relating to the granting of bail in respect of two cases before the Detaining Authority and consequently, no discussion was made by Detaining Authority with regard to the consequences of the granting of bail. He would further submit that bail orders 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, 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.

Learned counsel thus prayed to set aside the impugned detention order.

5. In oppugnation, learned Special Government Pleader, while supporting the detention order, vehemently argued that the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration the bail granted to the detenu in respect of two cases by the time of passing of the detention order and having been satisfied that the offences which may be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he ordered preventive detention and therefore, his order does not suffer from any procedural irregularities. He, thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. The point for consideration is whether the order of the 3rd respondent suffers from any legal infirmities and if so, the detention order dated 01.08.2023 is liable to be set aside?

7. We have given anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. As can be seen from the detention order dated 01.08.2023 and the grounds of detention, admittedly, the detaining authority has taken into consideration five cases for ordering detention. Then, a perusal of the counter filed by the 3rd respondent would show that as on the date of passing of detention order, the detenu was granted bail in respect of two crimes.

8. Now, a perusal of the detention order shows that the Detaining Authority has only mentioned that the detenu was involved in three cases. Except that, the Detaining Authority has not specifically mentioned about the detenu obtaining bail in respect of two crimes by the date of passing of the detention order. This indicates that the Sponsoring Authority has not placed before him the copies of the bail applications and bail orders. Then, we perused the material papers filed along with the counter by the 3rd respondent. In those material papers, the copies of the bail orders are not found place. It also indicates that copies of the bail orders were not furnished to the detenu as mandated by the procedure.

9. In W.P. No. 17210 of 2022, a Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows with regard to the consequence of non-furnishing of the bail orders to the Detaining Authorit