Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1411
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
Important Points
Subject
Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION AMENDMENT ACT : S.7(b), S.8(b)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.21
Headnote
(B) Preventive Detention - Legal standards - Detaining Authority must demonstrate awareness of the detenu's custody and provide reasons for the necessity of detention to prevent prejudicial activities. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the detention of her son, who was detained under the Act for being a bootlegger, despite being in judicial custody at the time of the detention order. The Detaining Authority did not adequately justify the need for preventive detention.
Findings of Court:
The court found the detention order illegal due to the failure of the Detaining Authority to consider the detenu's existing judicial custody and lack of sufficient justification for preventive detention.
Issues: The main issues were whether the detention order was valid given the detenu's judicial custody and if the Detaining Authority provided adequate reasons for the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Detaining Authority must show awareness of the detenu's custody and provide cogent reasons for preventive detention, which was not done in this case.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; detention order set aside.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri P. Rajesh Babu
For the Respondent:The Government Pleader representing the Addl. Advocate General
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
