Failure to consider and furnish conditional bail orders in a preventive detention order renders the detention illegal.

ORDER

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. - In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the detention of her husband Karri Raju as per the order of detention in REV02-MGSTOLWOD/28/2023-MAG-CCLA dated 10.07.2023 passed by 2nd respondent-District Collector & District Magistrate, ASR District, Paderu and confirmed by the 1st respondent as per G.O.Rt.No.1773, General Administration (SC.1) Department dated 04.09.2023 and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

2. By the proceedings dated 10.07.2023, the 2nd respondent passed the detention order under Section 3(1) and (2) 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'] treating the detenue as 'Drug Offender' under Section 2(f) of the Act 1 of 1986 on the subjective satisfaction that the detenue is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order since he has been habitually involved in criminal activities with other associates and even though a number of cases were registered against him, he did not change his attitude and increasing his activities day to day. Following cases in which the detenue was involved were taken as ground for ordering his detention.

In the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenue was habitually involved in the cases of committing the offences of purchase, possession, sale and transportation of Ganja which causes huge damage to the public health, public peace and tranquillity.

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

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

5. Though several grounds were raised against the detention order, it is mainly argued on behalf of the petitioner that the detenue was granted bail in 2 out of 3 cases but the Sponsoring Authority deliberately suppressed the said information and the failure of the Sponsoring Authority to place the information before the detaining authority vitiates the entire order of preventive detention. The duty is cast on the Sponsoring Authority to place before the 2nd respondent, apart from the materials relating to the 3 crimes, also the bail applications and bail orders for consideration and satisfaction of the detaining authority. Learned counsel would strenuously argue that only on coming to the satisfaction that while on bail there is a likelihood of detenue's repeating similar offences and acting prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detaining authority shall pass the detention order.

He further argued that it is the duty of the detaining authority to furnish along with grounds of detention, the materials considered by him which include the bail applications and bail orders. All these materials have to be furnished to the detenue to make an effective representation to the Advisory Board or the Government. Learned counsel would lament that in this case the said procedure has been grossly infracted by the authorities, inasmuch as, in the detention order there is no mention about forwarding of the bail applications and bail orders to the defence and his considering them and arriving at a opinion. Due to non-furnishing of the bail applications and bail orders, the detenue was denuded of valuable opportunity to make an effective representation before the Advisory Board. Due to such violation, the learned counsel would emphasise, the detention o