Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH. N, JJ.
Kalikiri Premaa, W/o.Munaswamy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondents
Writ Petition No.8240 of 2024
Decided on : 06-08-2024
Detention - Preventive Detention - AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 - Sections 2(g), 3 - The court emphasized the necessity of relevant grounds for detention and adherence to procedural safeguards, ruling that the detention order was legally defective due to reliance on irrelevant material.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a detention order against her son, labeled as a 'Goonda' under the AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, citing multiple criminal cases against him, and argued that the order was based on irrelevant material and lacked proper consideration of his bail status.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was issued without proper consideration of relevant grounds and procedural safeguards, leading to its invalidation. The detaining authority failed to justify the detention based on the nature of the offences.
Issues: Whether the detention order was valid given the reliance on irrelevant material and the failure to consider the detenu's bail status in previous cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a detention order must be based on relevant grounds and that procedural safeguards must be strictly followed; failure to do so renders the order invalid.
Result: The detention order was set aside, and the detenu was ordered to be released.
Order :
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Harinath.N)
The writ petition is filed challenging the order of detention vide Rev-CSE0PDL (PRC)/7/2023-MAGL4, DT.13.09.2023 as permitted by the respondent No.1 vide GORt.No.1110,General Administration (SC.I) Department, Dt.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, dated06.06.2023. 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 and9 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 is highly improbable as to which of the offences influenced the mind of the detaining authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction to issue the detention Order. When detention Order is composed, on relevant and irrelevant grounds, it does not survive to the extent of relevant grounds and the entire detention Order falls to ground.
9. The subjective satisfaction for passing the order o
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 must demonstrate subjective satisfaction with detailed grounds, especially regarding the detenu's bail status, to be legally valid.
Preventive detention requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards, and failure to provide relevant information to the detaining authority invalidates the detention order.
Detention orders must be based on adequate factual supports and clear legal justifications, ensuring compliance with procedural standards and the right to a fair hearing.
The validity of a preventive detention order hinges on the detaining authority's access to all relevant materials, and omissions can invalidate the order.
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 ....
A detention order against a person already in custody must show a likelihood of release based on cogent factors to avoid invalidity.
Preventive detention must adhere to constitutional safeguards, including providing grounds for detention and allowing the detenu to make representations.
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
