IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards, and failure to provide relevant information to the detaining authority invalidates the detention order.

ORDER:

(Harinath N., J.) :

The writ petition is filed challenging the order of detention vide C1/1753/M/2023, dated 20.12.2023 issued by the 1st respondent.

2. The petitioner is the wife of detenu who was detained vide order of detention dated 20.12.2023. The 2nd respondent confirmed the detention order and issued G.O.Rt.No.294 General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 07.02.2024. The detenu was involved in the following 06 cases.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sponsoring authority has suppressed the vital information to the detaining authority. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was released on bail in two cases and that the bail orders were not furnished to the 1st respondent.

4. It is also the contention of the petitioner that not forwarding the bail orders to the 1st respondent has eclipsed the 1st respondent from considering the facts and circumstances for grant of bail. It is also submitted that there is a possibility for the respondents to take a different view had the detaining authority furnished all information without suppressing the relevant material.

5. It is also stated that out of 06 cases the detenu was arrested in Cr.No.34 of 2023 and Cr.No.106 of 2023. He was produced through a P.T. Warrant in Cr.No.107 of 2023. In Cr.No.146 of 2022, Cr.No.204 of 2023 and Cr.No.296 of 2023 he was served notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.,

6. It is submitted that, the detention order was passed without application of the standard safeguards. It is also submitted that three other cases where notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., were issued would itself indicate that the police did not consider arrest of the detenu necessary in those cases and issued Section 41-a Cr.P.C., and instead of proceeding under section 41-b Cr.P.C.,

7. It is submitted that, the investigating officers in Cr.Nos.146 of 2022, 204 of 2023, 296 of 2023 of Atmakur Police Station were convinced that the petitioner would comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 41-a of Cr.P.C., It is also submitted that the detenu was acquitted in Cr.No.146 of 2022 as the matter was compromised, the copy of the Award was not forwarded to the detaining authority. There are no grounds for branding the detenu under the definition of Goonda as defined under Section 2(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (herein after be referred as ‘the Act’).

8. The State in their counter has narrated the details of all cases which were registered against the detenu. It is also submitted that the detenu was involved in Bodily Offences, offences against Woman and simple hurt cases without respecting law. It is also submitted that the police are maintaining a rowdy sheet bearing No.627 at Atmakur Police Station and that his activities would come within the definition of Goonda as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act.

9. It is also submitted that the detenu was involved in six other cases during the year 2014 and 2021 and that all those cases were only referred to in the order of detention, but were not relied upon for passing the order of detention. It is also submitted that, the procedure established under law was followed for passing the order of detention and ample opportunity was granted to the detenu to make a representation to the