Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHI AT AMARAVATI
U.Durga Prasad Rao, Sumathi Jagadam, JJ.
Lanjipalli Satyavathi -Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Administration Department and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.1101 of 2024
Decided On : 18-06-2024
ORDER :
Sumathi Jagadam, J.
The petitioner, who is mother of the detenu, namely, Lanjipalli Vinayak @ Vinay @ Raju, S/o Srinivasa Rao, aged 24 years, D.No.2-72, Pidimgoyyi Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural, East Godavari District, prays for writ of habeas corpus directing the respondent authorities to set the detenu at liberty by declaring the detention order in Roc.No.M1 (SEB.SOUTH)/479793/2023 dated 28.12.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential confirmation order issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.467, dated 28.02.2024, as contrary to law, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:
On the information furnished by the Sponsoring Authority/3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent, the Detaining Authority, having considered that the detenu is involved in following seven 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 is 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.467 dated 28.02.2024 confirmed the detention order.
| Sl. No. | Crime No. and Section | Name of Police Station | Date |
| 1 | Cr.No.510/2020 u/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 | Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Korukonda | 14.11.2020 |
| 2 | Cr.No.511/2020 u/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 | Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Korukonda | 15.11.2020 |
| 3 | Cr.No.1094/2020 u/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 | Special Enforcement Bureau, South Station, Rajamahendravaram | 25.12.2020 |
| 4 | Cr.No.656/2021 u/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 | Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Korukonda | 30.08.2021 |
| 5 | Cr.No.47/2022 u/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 | Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Peddapuram. | 07.01.2022 |
| 6 | Cr.No.406/2022 u/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 | Special Enforcement Bureau, South Station, Rajamahendravaram | 30.03.2022 |
| 7 | Cr.No.270/2023 u/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 | Special Enforcement Bureau, South Station, Rajamahendravaram | 14.12.2023 |
3. The respondents filed counter and opposed the writ petition.
4. Heard arguments of Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Kader Basha learned Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detenu was involved in seven cases, out of which, in six cases, he was granted bail, and in the other case, i.e., Crime No.270 of 2023, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. He would further submit that as on the date of passing the detention order, the petitioner was in judicial custody, and he was lodged in the Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, and in that view, his committing any further offences is highly impossible. However, the Detaining Authority has mechanically ordered preventive detention without considering this fact. Learned Counsel would further submit that though there is no embargo for ordering preventive detention even when a particular detenu was in judicial custody by the date of detention order, still the Detaining Authority shall give cogent reasons for passing the detention order by specifically mentioning in the order that though the detenu was in judicial custody, the material placed before the said authority revealed that there was every likelihood of detenu g
Preventive detention orders must consider the detenu's existing custody and provide cogent reasons for necessity; failure to do so renders the order illegal.
Preventive detention requires clear justification, especially when the detenue is in custody, and must demonstrate a likelihood of bail and further offenses.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of the likelihood of release and necessity for detention; vague assertions are insufficient.
A detention order must demonstrate subjective satisfaction with detailed grounds, especially regarding the detenu's bail status, to be legally valid.
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 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 orders must provide all relevant documents to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so invalidates the detention.
A detention order against a person already in custody must show a likelihood of release based on cogent factors to avoid invalidity.
Procedural irregularities and failure to consider the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail rendered the detention order illegal and unsustainable.
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
