Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH N., JJ.
G. Shobha, W/o. A. Sasi Kumar @ Shasi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Chief Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.2163 Of 2024
Decided On : 31-07-2024
Detention - Bootlegging - Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 - The court emphasized the necessity of subjective satisfaction and proper grounds for detention, ruling that the order was legally defective due to lack of detailed consideration of the detenu's bail status.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged a detention order against a person considered a bootlegger under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, based on multiple criminal offenses. The petitioner argued the order lacked proper reasoning and was issued while the detenu was in judicial custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was passed without adequate consideration of the detenu's bail status and failed to provide specific reasons for the subjective satisfaction required for such an order, leading to its invalidation.
Issues: Whether a detention order can be validly issued against a person already in judicial custody and if the order met the necessary legal standards of subjective satisfaction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that while a detention order can be issued against a person in custody, it must be based on a thorough examination of the circumstances, including the likelihood of release on bail and the potential for future prejudicial activities.
Result: The detention order was set aside, and the detenu was ordered to be released.
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 Police Station | Under Section.7(B) r/w.8(B) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 |
| 3. | Crime No.252 of 2022, registered on 03.09.2022 | Special Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor Urban Police Station | Under Section.7(B) r/w.8(A) of APP Act, 2020 and 34(e) of AP Excise 1968 |
| 4. | Crime No.195 of 2022, registered on 31.05.2022 | Special Enforcement Bureau, Chittoor Urban Police Station | Under Section.34(e) of AP Excise Act, 2020 |
| 5. | Crime No.69 of 2022, registered on 28.04.2022 | Gudipala Police Station, Chittoor District | Under Section.7(B) r/w.8(B) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and Section 34(e) of AP Excise Act, 2020 |
| 6. | Crime No.33 of 2022, registered on 12.03.2022 | Gudipala police Station, Chittoor District | Under Section.7(B) r/w.8(B) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act and Section 34(e) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 |
| 7. | Crime No.216 of 2021, registered on 21.10.2021 | Gudipala Police Station, Chittoor District | Under Section.7(B) r/w.8(B) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 |
| 8. | Crime No.121 of 2021, registered on 08.06.2021 | Gudipala Police Station, Chittoor District | Under Section.7(B) r/w.8(B) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 |
4. The detenu was first arrested in Cr.No.216 of 2021 and sent to judicial custody. He was granted bail in Cr.No.216 of 2021 and Cr.No.121 of 2021 on 30.10.2021. Thereafter, the detenu was arrested on 14.10.2023 in Cr.No.184 of 2023 and was sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, the detenu was produced through P.T.warrants in Cr.Nos.33 of 2022 and 69 of 2022. The detenu was produced through P.T.warrants in Cr.Nos.7 of 2023, 252 of 2022 and 195 of 2022 on 30.10.2023. The main ground raised by the learned counsel for petitioner is that the order of detention is passed without application of mind and that no reasons are assigned for compliance of subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of detention was passed when the detenu was in judicial custody and as such submits that on this ground the order of detention has to be set aside.
6. It is also the stand of the petitioner that there is no mention of any bail application or bail granted to the detenu in six cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention, the detention order and the confirmation order ought to be set aside.
7. It is also stated that the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent refers to a casual, monotonous and bald ground for passing the order of detention.
8. The state in their counter have narrated the involvement of the detenu in various crimes and the detail
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 ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
