Non-consideration of bail orders and failure to furnish bail order copies to the detenue for effective representation would vitiate the detention order, rendering it illegal and unsustainable.

ORDER

Kiranmayee Mandava, J. - This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Habeas Corpus by declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, in detaining Sri Manda David, S/o. Manda Adam, vide order dated 22.05.2023 in E Office No. 129/2023/C1, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No. 1448 General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 24.07.2023, as illegal, unconstitutional and sought for set aside of the same and set the detenue at liberty.

2. The writ petitioner is mother of the detenue, Sri Manda David. The petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in E Office. No. 129/2023/C1, dated 22.05.2023, passed an order of detention under Sec 3(1) & (2) read with Sec.2(f) of the A.P Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, (Act No. 1 of 1986), placing the detenue under detention in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. The said order of detention was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 1448, dated 24.07.2023 treating the detenue as 'drug offender' as defined under Sec.2(f) of the A.P. Prevention of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The following are the cases, which have been taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent, while placing the detenue under detention:

3. The petitioner contends that out of three (3) cases registered against him, in all the cases, the detenue was granted bail. The detaining authority did not take into consideration the said fact while arriving at the satisfaction. The petitioner contends that copies of bail orders were not furnished to the detenue enabling him to submit his representation.

4. The 2nd respondent filed his counter affidavit, stating that the detenue is habitual offender and his committing offences affecting the public order involving in illegal possession and sale of prohibited Ganja, Cannabis (Hemp). With a view to prevent the detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public order, the order of detention was passed. The quantum of punishment provided under regular law under which the crimes were registered against the detenue, would not be sufficient to deter the criminal activities of the detenue.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Vijaya Raju, and Sri Khader Basha, Special Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General for the respondents.

6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenue was released on bail as on the date of detention and the bail order copies have not been placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority, which makes the order of detention an invalid one, as being passed without considering the material facts. In support of her contentions, she relies on the decision of this Court in W.P.No. 16187 of 2023, wherein it is observed at Para No. 14, as under:

'14. This Court in W.P. No. 16861 of 2023 relied on the judgment of the composite High Court in S. Sathu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chief Secretary, and the judgments of the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors v. Manoharlal Narang, Mehrunissa v. State of Maharashtra, Vasanthu Sumalatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India and another and Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra wherein, the Apex Court has held that non consideration of the bail order would amount to non application of mind as non consideration of relevant and important material