Preventive detention orders must provide all relevant documents to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so invalidates the detention.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

Heard Sri Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for Respondents.

2. The detenue in the present case is said to have been arrayed as an accused in the following cases:-

1. Cr.No.52/2018, U/s.341, 323, 363 and 506 IPC of Hindupur Rural Upgrade Police Station.

2. Cr.No.10/2019, U/s. 393 IPC of Chilamathur PS, Anantapur District.

3. Cr.No.108/2019, U/s 452, 323, 324 and 506 read with 34 IPC of Hindupur Rural PS, Anantapur District.

4. Cr.No.236/2022, U/s 147, 148, 120(b), 109 and 302 read with149 IPC of Hindupur Rural Upgrade PS.

5. Cr.No.239/2022, U/s 305 IPC of Hindupur Rural PS.

6. Cr.No.180/2023, U/s 506 IPC of Hindupur Rural Upgrade Police Station.

7. Cr.No.59 of 2023, U/s 20(b)(ii)(c) and 8(c) of NDPS, Act of Anandapuram PS, Visakhapatnam.

8. Cr.No.104 of 2023, U/s 328 & 284 r/w 34 IPC, Sec 20(b)(ii)(c) & 22(c) of NDPS, Act and Section 18(c) DCA-1940 of II town PS, Visakhapatnam.

3. The detenue is also said to have been arrayed as an accused in the following cases in the State of Karnataka:-

1. Cr.No.55/2017, U/s. 395 IPC of Goribidanur Rural PS, Karnataka State.

2. Cr.No.167/2021, U/s 392 IPC of Uppinangadi PS, Karnataka State.

3. Cr.No.268/2021, U/s 392 & 394 IPC of Koratageri PS, Karnataka State.

4. Cr.No.21/2022, U/s 395 IPC of Midigesi PS, Karnataka State.

5. Cr.No.51/2022, U/s 394 IPC of Koratageri PS, Karnataka State.

6. Cr.No.72/2022, U/s 392 IPC of Koratageri PS, Karnataka State.

7. Cr.No.83/2022, U/s 392 IPC of Gudibanda PS, Karnataka State.

8. Cr.No.100/2022, U/s 392 IPC of Koratageri PS, Karnataka State.

4. The detenue had been granted bail in one of the above six (06) cases registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh and no bail has been granted in the remaining five cases registered in Andhra Pradesh and eight cases registered in Karnataka State. At that stage, the 2^nd Respondent had issued an order of detention dated 02.02.2024 detaining the detenue in Central Jail, Kadapa. The same was approved vide G.O.Rt.No.643, dated 26.03.2024 issued by the 1^st Respondent.

5. The grounds on which the order of detention and subsequent proceedings had been issued was that the detenue was habituated in the commission of Goonda activities in violation of law, which comes under the category of GOONDA as defined under Section 2(g) of Section 2 of A.P.Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 due to which public order was being affected and there was every possibility of the detenue continuing to indulge in these kind of acts which would pose danger to the community as well as affect public order.

6. The petitioner who is the father of the detenue moved the present Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Habeas- Corpus on the ground that the original detention order as well as the confirmation order were vitiated on the following grounds:-

1. The order of preventive detention could not have been issued as the sponsoring authority deliberately suppressed the factum of grant of bails to the detenue by the concerned Courts before the detaining authority.

2. The detenue was granted bails in almost of all the six cases registered in Andhra Pradesh, but he was not supplied the bail orders which were granted in his favour and the failure on the part of the detaining authority in supplying the bail orders vitiates the order of preventive detention.

3. The detenue was not furnished with the copies of the bail orders to enable him to make an effective representation before the concerned authorities and this procedural irregularity is sufficient to vitiate the entire order.

4. The copy of the order of detention as well as grounds of detention along with the material relied on by the detaining authority have not been served on the detenue and most of the documents are illegible and without proper pagination and without supply of copies of FIR.

5. As held by th