R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH N.
G. Shobha, W/o. A. Sasi Kumar @ Shasi – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Chief Secretary – Respondent
ORDER :
(Harinath N., J.)
The writ petition is filed challenging the detention order issued vide proceedings REV-CSEC0PDL (PRC)/9/2023-MAGL4, dt.10.11.2023 by the 2nd respondent and was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.08, General Administration (SPL.[LAW AND ORDER]) department, dt.02.01.2024.
2. The wife of the detenu has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of detention which is passed on the ground that the petitioner’s husband is considered as a boot-legger within the meaning of Section2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Gundas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.
3. The petitioner’s husband was involved in eight different crimes and the details of the crimes pending against the petitioner’s husband are tabulated below :
| S.No. | Crime No. | Police Station | Offences under Sections |
| 1. | Crime No.184 of 2023, registered on 14.10.2023 | Special Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor | Urban Police Station Under Section.7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act |
| 2. | Crime No.7 of 2023, registered on 10.01.2023. | Special Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor Urban Pol | |
A. Geetha v. State of T.N. (2006) 7 SCC 603 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 324
Abdul Aziz v. District Magistrate
Ashim Kumar Ray v. State of W.B. (1973) 4 SCC 76 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 723
Biram Chand v. State of U.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 573 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 609
Borjahan Gorey v. State of W.B.
DebuMahato v. State of W.B. [(1974) 4 SCC 135 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 274
Ibrahim Nazeer v. State of T.N.
Kamarunnissa v. Union of India
Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah
Rameshwar Shaw vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan
T.V. Sravanan v. State (2006) 2 SCC 664 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 593
A detention order must demonstrate subjective satisfaction with detailed grounds, especially regarding the detenu's bail status, to be legally valid.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of the likelihood of release and necessity for detention; vague assertions are insufficient.
A detention order can be validly issued against a person in custody if there is a rational basis for the likelihood of release and the necessity for preventive detention.
Preventive detention orders must consider the detenu's existing custody and provide cogent reasons for necessity; failure to do so renders the order illegal.
Preventive detention orders must provide all relevant documents to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so invalidates the detention.
Preventive detention under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act requires the authority to demonstrate necessity due to repeated offenses impacting public health, not merely due t....
Detention orders must be based on relevant grounds and adhere to procedural safeguards to ensure legality and protect fundamental rights.
Preventive detention must adhere to procedural safeguards and be based on relevant grounds to ensure the protection of fundamental rights.
A detention order against a person already in custody must show a likelihood of release based on cogent factors to avoid invalidity.
AN ORDER OF DETENTION CAN ONLY BE VALIDLY PASSED IF THE DETAINING AUTHORITY HAS REASON TO BELIEVE, ON THE BASIS OF RELIABLE MATERIAL, THAT THERE IS A REAL POSSIBILITY OF THE DETENU BEING RELEASED ON ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.