Back
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Mohammed Jaharabhi W/o Mohammed Rafi – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Petitioner prays for writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that her sister’s son Shaik Jameer, S/o Late Gayaz Basha was illegally detained pursuant to the proceedings in Rc.C1(Magl)/191/2023, dated 24.07.2023 of the 2nd respondent as confirmed in G.O.Rt. No. 1911, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 25.09.2023 by the 1st respondent and therefore the said detention order may be declared as illegal and consequently respondents may be directed to release the detenue.
2. The petitioner’s case is that the 2nd respondent vide order dated 24.07.2023 passed the detention order against Shaik Jameer S/o Late Gayaz Basha having taken into consideration the following 5 cases in which the detenue was involved treating him as “Drug Offender” as defined U/s 2(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986) [for short ‘the Act 1 of 1986’].
| 1. | Cr. No. 155/2014, U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Santhapeta PS, Nellore City. |
| 2. | Cr. No. 49/2018 U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Santhapeta PS, Nellore City |
Preventive detention orders must rely on relevant, non-stale material; reliance on acquitted cases renders such orders illegal.
Preventive detention orders must be based on recent and relevant conduct of the detenue, demonstrating a clear link to future risks; reliance on stale offences without recorded justification renders ....
Preventive detention cannot rely on stale incidents lacking immediate proximity; a legitimate link must support the necessity of detention based on past conduct.
The repeated drug offending activities and the inadequacy of bail to prevent the detenu from indulging in dangerous drug offences justified the preventive detention.
Preventive detention requires clear justification, especially when the detenue is in custody, and must demonstrate a likelihood of bail and further offenses.
Preventive detention orders must consider the detenu's existing custody and provide cogent reasons for necessity; failure to do so renders the order illegal.
Detention order – Justified - Cases registered under the NDPS Act - Drug-offender – Exclusion of two criminal cases registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections....
The court clarified that a valid order of preventive detention must solely rely on relevant offences fitting the defined categorization, and reliance on irrelevant offences invalidates such orders.
Detention - Non-consideration of the material, namely, acquittal in the two out of four crimes, in our view, does not vitiate the order of detention, as the said crimes were never made the basis for ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compelling reasons to justify preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act, 1988, and the importance of complying with procedural....
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
