Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 590
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH N., JJ.
Kalikiri Premaa W/o Munaswamy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8240 of 2024
Decided On : 06-08-2024
Important Points
Preventive detention must adhere to procedural safeguards and be based on relevant grounds to ensure the protection of fundamental rights.
Subject
Criminal Law - Preventive Detention
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : Ch.xvi, Ch.xvii, Ch.xxii
Headnote
Detention - Preventive Detention - AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in preventive detention, highlighting the importance of relevant grounds and subjective satisfaction for issuing detention orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a detention order against her son, who was labeled a 'Goonda' under the AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, citing multiple criminal cases against him. The petitioner argued that the detaining authority relied on irrelevant material and failed to consider the detenu's bail status.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was based on irrelevant grounds and did not meet the necessary procedural safeguards. It ruled that the detaining authority failed to provide adequate justification for the detention, leading to its invalidation.
Issues: Whether the detention order was valid given the reliance on irrelevant material and the failure to consider the detenu's bail status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a detention order must be based on relevant grounds and that the detaining authority must ensure compliance with procedural safeguards to justify preventive detention.
Result: The court set aside the detention order and ordered the release of the detenu.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Kambhampati Ramesh Babu.
ORDER :
1. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of detention vide Rev-CSE0PDL (PRC)/7/2023-MAGL4, dated 13.09.2023 as permitted by the respondent No. 1 vide GORt. No. 1110,General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 06.06.2023.
2. The petitioner is the mother of detenu who was detained vide order of detention dated 13.09.2023. The 1st respondent confirmed the detention order and issued G.O.Rt. No. 1110, dated 06.06.2023. The detenu was involved in the following 13 cases:
| S. No. | Crime No. | Police Station | Offences under Sections |
| 1. | Crime No. 10 of 2016 | Tiruchanooru Tirupati Urban District | Under Section 120-b, 201, 302, 341 IPC |
| 2. | Crime No. 82 of 2015 | Tiruchanooru Police Station, Tirupati Urban District | Under Section 341, 506 IPC read with 34 IPC |
| 3. | Crime No. 47 of 2017 | Yadamari Police Station | Under Section 307 IPC |
| 4. | Crime No. 122 of 2018 | Tiruchanooru Police Station, Tirupati Urban District | Under Section 307, 341, 506 IPC |
| 5. | Crime No. 157 of 2020 | Yadamarri Police Station | Under Section 307, 324, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 |
| 6. | Crime No. 158 of 2020 | Yadamarri Police Station | Under Section 307, 332, 353 IPC |
| 7. | Crime No. 61 of 2022 | Yadamarri Police Station | Under Section 7 (B) read with 8 (B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 |
| 8. | Crime No. 111 of 2022 | Yadamarri Police Station | Under Section 7 (B) read with 8 (B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 |
| 9. | Crime No. 131 of 2022 | Yadamarri Police Station | Under Section 353, 324 IPC |
| 10. | Crime No. 132 of 2022 | Yadamarri Police Station | Under Section 34 (1)(i) read with 34(a), (f), 14(2) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020 |
| 11. | Crime No. 227 of 2022 | Yadamarri Police Station | Under Section 307, 324, 427, 354, 448, 506 IPC |
| 12. | Crime No. 228 of 2022 | Yadamarri Police Station | Under Section 332, 506 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act |
| 13. | Crime No. 144 of 2023 | Yadamarri Police Station | Under Section 323, 506, 509 IPC |
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of detention refers the detenu as ‘Goonda’ as defined under Section 2(g) of the AP Prevention of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. Whereas crimes registered at S. Nos. 7, 8 and 9 relates to Boot-legging.
4. The learned counsel submits that the first crime registered against the detenu was on 06.04.2015 and crimes were registered in the year 2017, 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2023. Two crimes registered in the year 2015, one crime registered in the year 2017 and 2018 have no proximity. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenu granted bail in all cases. However, the said information was not properly considered by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that irrelevant material is relied upon for passing the order of detention. It is also the stand of the petitioner that order of preventive detention and the material relied by the detaining authority were not supplied to the detenu within the prescribed time.
6. The State in their counter have narrated the details of all cases and their details which were registered against the detenu.
Consideration of the Court:
7. The petitioner challenges order of detention on two grounds, that the detenu has been termed as a ‘Goonda’ and that irrelevant material was considered for passing the order of detention.
8. Firstly, the offences other than Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of Indian Penal Code cannot be taken into consideration for bringing a person within the definition of ‘Goonda’ and secondly, it i
