Preventive detention orders must consider all relevant materials, including bail orders, to ensure legality; failure to do so renders the detention illegal.

ORDER :

1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the detention of his son Vamsi Krishna @ Sokkam Vamsi Krishna as per the order of detention in RC.C1/226/M/2023, dated 15.02.2023 passed by 2nd respondent- Collector & District Magistrate, Nandyal District and confirmed by the 1st respondent as per G.O.Rt. No. 698, General Administration (Law and Order) Department, dated 14.04.2023 and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

2. By the proceedings dated 15.02.2023, the 2nd respondent passed the detention order under Section 3(1) and (2) 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’] treating the detenue as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986 on the subjective satisfaction that the detenue is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order since he has been habitually involved in notorious criminal activities with other associates. Following cases in which the detenue was involved were taken as ground for ordering his detention.

In the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenue was habitually committing offences under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII IPC and he is a dangerous and notorious criminal having been involved in all types of offences viz. bodily and other heinous offences and has been creating terror in the minds of innocent public in and around the Allagadda town.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition.

4. Heard arguments of Sri D. Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General for respondents.

5. Though several grounds were raised against the detention order, learned counsel for petitioner mainly argued that in all the six cases, which were considered for ordering preventive detention, the detenue was granted bails by the concerned criminal courts, however, the Sponsoring Authority has not placed said information along with bail applications and orders before the Detaining Authority and no discussion was made in the detention order with regard to the said fact. Learned counsel would strenuously argue that only after satisfying that even though the petitioner is on bail, there is a likelihood of his repeating similar offences and acting prejudicial to maintenance of public order, the Detaining Authority shall pass the detention order. Since the relevant material was not placed before him by the Sponsoring Authority, there was no occasion for the Detaining Authority to consider the said crucial aspect and mention in his order. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in ordering the detention is vitiated for non-furnishing of the relevant material before him:

(a) Learned counsel would further argue that it is the duty of the Detaining Authority to furnish the materials considered by him including the bail applications and bail orders. All those materials have to be furnished to the detenue in order to enable him to make an effective representation to the Advisory Board or t