Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH N., JJ.
HARINATH N., J.
A. Akkamma, W/o. Anke Naresh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Chief Secretary and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.4531 Of 2024
Decided On : 31-07-2024
Detention - Preventive Detention - AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 - The court emphasized the necessity of following procedural safeguards in preventive detention, highlighting the importance of providing grounds for detention and the right to representation.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges a detention order against the detenu, who has multiple criminal cases against him. The petitioner argues that vital information was suppressed and that the detention order lacked proper grounds and procedural safeguards.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was legally defective due to the absence of necessary details regarding the detenu's past cases, including acquittals and bail information, which were not considered by the detaining authority.
Issues: Whether the detention order was valid given the lack of procedural safeguards and the failure to consider relevant information about the detenu's past conduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detaining authority must provide clear grounds for detention and ensure that all relevant information is considered, failing which the detention order cannot be upheld.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the detention order is set aside.
ORDER :
(Harinath N., J.) :
The writ petition is filed challenging the order of detention vide RC.No.MAGL1/1660/2023, dt.27.01.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.640 General Administration (SPL[LAW AND ORDER]) department, dt.26.03.2024.
2. The petitioner is the wife of detenu who was detained vide order of detention dated 27.01.2024. The 1st respondent confirmed the detention order and issued G.O.Rt.No.640, dated 26.03.2024. The detenu was involved in the following 19 cases.
| S.No. | Crime No. | Police Station | Offences under Sections |
| 1. | Crime No.4 of 2009 Dated 30.01.2009 | Kanaganapalli Police Station | Under Section. 324, 427 r/w.34 IPC |
| 2. | Crime No.11 of 2009 Dated 26.02.2009 | Roddam Police Station | Under Section 395 IPC |
| 3. | Crime No.79 o 2010 Dated 01.07.2010 | Dharmavaram Rural Police Station | Under Section 341, 380, 457 IPC |
| 4. | Crime No.11 of 2011 Dated 18.02.2011 | Putlur Police Station | Under Section 457, 380 IPC |
| 5. | Crime No.38 of 2011 Dated 02.06.2011 | Dharmavaram Rural Police Station | Under Section 395 IPC |
| 6. | Crime No.43 of 2011 Dated 30.05.2011 | Rapthadu Police Station | Under Section 397 IPC |
| 7. | Crime No.82 of 2012 Dated 01.05.2011 | Dharmavaram I Town Police Station | Under Section 107 IPC |
| 8. | Crime No.50 of 2019 Dated 30.05.2011 | Rapthadu Police Station | Under Section 107 IPC |
| 9. | Crime No.351 of 2019 Dated 26.10.2019 | Dharmavaram I Town Police Station | Under Section 325 IPC |
| 10. | Crime No.361 of 2019 dated 29.10.2019 | Dharmavaram I Town Police Station | Under Section 107 IPC |
| 11. | Crime No.226 of 2020 Dated 23.07.2020 | Bathalapalli Police Station | Under Section 420, 406 r/w.34 IPC |
| 12. | Crime No.303 of 2021 Dated 21.11.2021 | Bathalapalli Police Station | Under Section 9(1) AP Gaming Act. |
| 13. | Crime No.677 of 2021 Dated 15.12.2021 | Dharmavaram I Town Police Station Under Section 341, 323, 506 IPC |
|
| 14. | Crime No.53 of 2022 Dated 01.04.2022 | Dharmavaram Rural Police Station | Under Section 9(1) AP Gaming Act |
| 15. | Crime No.19 of 2022 Dated 18.10.2022 | Dharmavaram II Town Police Station | Under Section 110 (e) Cr.P.C. |
| 16. | Crime No.34 of 2022 Dated 01.12.2022 | Dharmavaram II Town Police Station | Under Section 324 r/w.34 IPC |
| 17. | Crime No.83 of 2022 Dated 07.04.2022 | Gorantla Police Station | Under Section 9(1) AP Gaming Act and Section 34(a) AP Excise Act |
| 18. | Crime No.97 of 2023 Dated 27.06.2023 | Dharmavaram Rural Police Station | Under Section 354, 448, 427, 323 IPC |
| 19. | Crime No.93 of 2023 Dated 12.08.2023 | Dharmavaram II Town Police Station | Under Section 354 (b), 427 r/w.34 IPC. |
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sponsoring authority has suppressed the vital information to the detaining authority. The details pertaining to the bails granted in 15 out of 19 cases registered. The bail orders were not furnished to the detaining authority.
4. It is also stated that out of 19 cases two cases do not have any proximity between the said incidents. The 7th incident is alleged to have occurred in the year 2012 and the 8th incident is said to have occurred in the year 2019. The detention order is passed without application of the standard safeguards.
5. It is also submitted that four cases were bound over cases and they could not have been shown as reason for passing the order of detention. It is also submitted that out of the 19 cases registered against the detenu, nine cases ended in acquittal/compromise before the Lok Adalat. These facts were not placed before the detaining authority.
6. It is also the stand of the petitioner t
Preventive detention must adhere to constitutional safeguards, including providing grounds for detention and allowing the detenu to make representations.
Preventive detention requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards, and failure to provide relevant information to the detaining authority invalidates the detention order.
A detention order must demonstrate subjective satisfaction with detailed grounds, especially regarding the detenu's bail status, to be legally valid.
The validity of a preventive detention order hinges on the detaining authority's access to all relevant materials, and omissions can invalidate the order.
Detention orders must be based on relevant grounds and adhere to procedural safeguards to ensure legality and protect fundamental rights.
Failure to consider and furnish conditional bail orders in a preventive detention order renders the detention illegal.
The failure to consider the orders of bail granted to the detenu by the competent Court vitiated the detention order, as it deprived the detaining authority of the opportunity to consider relevant ma....
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of the likelihood of release and necessity for detention; vague assertions are insufficient.
Preventive detention orders must adhere to procedural safeguards, including the disclosure of all relevant information to the detaining authority to ensure the legality of the detention.
The court ruled that failing to consider vital bail orders when issuing a detention renders the detention order illegal, violating constitutional rights of the individual.
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
