Preventive detention requires clear justification, especially when the detenue is in custody, and must demonstrate a likelihood of bail and further offenses.

ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenue namely Veluganti Venkatesh S/o Venkata Ramana, Aged 26 years, R/o D.No.7-63, Vinayakudi Temple Street, Raghunandapuram Village of Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District prays for writ of habeas corpus directing the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty by declaring the detention order in Roc.No.M1 (SEB.SOUTH)/ 479794/2023, dt.28.12.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequential confirmation order issued by 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.468, General Administration (SC-1) Department, dated 28.02.2024 is contrary to law, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other orders deemed fit.

2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

(a) On the information furnished by the Sponsoring Authority / 2nd respondent, the Detaining Authority / R2 having considered that the detenue is involved in following five crimes and those crimes fall within the ambit of Section 2(b) 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’] and he was a bootlegger and acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the detention order dated 28.12.2023 and later, the 1st respondent by virtue of G.O.Rt.No.468, General Administration (SC-1) Department, dated 28.02.2024 confirmed the detention and the detenue shall be detained in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, until further orders.

3. The respondents filed counter and opposed the writ petition.

4. Heard arguments of Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Khadar Masthan, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General for respondents.

5. Severely fulminating the detention order, learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that out of the five cases which were considered for ordering preventive detention, in three cases i.e., in Cr.Nos.302/2020, 400/2020 and 159/2022 the physical presence of detenue namely Veluganti Venkatesh was highly doubtful, inasmuch as, even according to police report, when the police went for raid one person was available at the scene of offence and he ran away on seeing the police and the police identified him as the detenue and shouted and tried to catch him but he skulked away. Learned counsel would thus submit that the entire case in those three crimes pivots on the alleged identification by the police of the raid party and not by any independent mediators. Therefore, the involvement of the detenue in those cases is the prime question which has to be decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial. In that view, the Detaining Authority ought not to have taken those cases for consideration to order preventive detention. Learned counsel further argued that considering the fact that the detenue’s participation in the offence as highly doubtful, Hon’ble High Court