IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, JJ.
Uppalapati Srihari, S/o. Subbarao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. By Its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Amaravati & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 18770 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025
(A) A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 - Section 2(g) - Preventive detention - Detenue was detained as a 'Goonda' based on allegations of habitual antisocial activities - The detention order was challenged on grounds of suppression of bail information and procedural irregularities. (Paras 5, 6, 17, 22)
(B) Preventive Detention - The authority must demonstrate a likelihood of release from custody and the necessity of detention to prevent future offenses - Mere assertions without supporting details are insufficient to uphold a detention order. (Paras 9, 15, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the detention of his son, who was accused in multiple cases, arguing that the detaining authority failed to consider granted bails and did not provide necessary documents for effective representation. (Paras 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the detention order lacked sufficient details regarding the likelihood of the detenue's release and was thus unsustainable. (Paras 22, 23)
Issues: Whether the detention order was valid given the failure to disclose bail information and the necessity of detention despite the detenue being in custody. (Paras 5, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a detention order must be based on cogent evidence of the likelihood of release and the necessity of preventive detention, emphasizing that vague statements are inadequate. (Paras 15, 21)
Result: Writ petition allowed; detention order set aside and detenue ordered to be released.
ORDER :
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
Heard Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri, 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.78/2015, U/s.354-D(2), 506 and 509 IPC of Patamata Police Station, Krishna District (Acquitted).
2. Cr.No.600/2018, U/s. 506 IPC of Nallapadu PS, Guntur District.
3. Cr.No.56/2023, U/s 420 read with 34 IPC of Chilakapuripeta P.S.
4. Cr.No.153/2023, U/s 354-A, 354-D and 506 of Nidadavole PS.
5. Cr.No.177 /2023, U/s 386 IPC of Nidadavole PS.
6. Cr.No.343/2023, U/s 420 IPC of Bommuru Police Station.
7. Cr.No.211/ 2023, U/s 354-D IPC and Sec.66(e), 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 of Nidadavole PS.
8. Cr.No.14/ 2024, U/s.8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Nidadavole PS.
3. The detenue had been granted bail in four of the above eight cases. At that stage, the 3rd Respondent had issued an order of detention dated 15.03.2024 in Roc.No.M1(Ndd.PS)/486139/2024 detaining the detenue in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram. The same was approved vide G.O.Rt.No.775, dated 25.04.2024 issued by the 1st Respondent.
4. The grounds on which the order of detention and subsequent proceedings had been issued was that the detenue is a "Goonda"defined under Section 2(g) of A.P.Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 and he is a habitual offender in antisocial activities involving in extortion, cheating, crime against Women and Ganja (NDPS cases) and other heinous offences.
5. 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 four cases out of the eight cases registered against him, 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 order of cancellation of bail in Crime No.177 of 2023 on the file of Nidadavole PS vide Crl.M.P.No.2611 of 2023 is not in the knowledge of the detaining authority, as such, the detaining authority had no authenticated information to arrive at just conclusion that the detenue is a threat to maintenance of public order.
5. The detention order is vitiated on the ground of suppression of material facts.
6. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court time and again that grant of bails to the detenue in the cases which were taken as grounds is a very vital fact and that not having knowledge about the said aspect clearly vitiates the entire order of preventive detention.
6. Sri Vishnu Teja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General would submit that, the original order of detention, at page No.14 of the compilation filed along with the counter affidavit specifically states that “Therefore I, Dr. K. Madhavi Latha, I.A.S., Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Sub Section 2 of Section 3 of the A.P.Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 vide G.O. Rt. No. 2425, General Administration (SC.I) Department, Dated: 15.12.2023 do hereby direct under Sub Sec
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of the likelihood of release and necessity for detention; vague assertions are insufficient.
Preventive detention orders must provide all relevant documents to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so invalidates the detention.
A detention order can be validly issued against a person in custody if there is a rational basis for the likelihood of release and the necessity for preventive detention.
A detention order must demonstrate subjective satisfaction with detailed grounds, especially regarding the detenu's bail status, to be legally valid.
Confirmed detention order - Subjective satisfaction arrived by Detaining Authority that acts and conduct of petitioner were prejudicial to maintenance of public order cannot be faulted at.
The failure to consider the orders of bail granted to the detenu by the competent Court vitiated the detention order, as it deprived the detaining authority of the opportunity to consider relevant ma....
Procedural irregularities and failure to consider the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail rendered the detention order illegal and unsustainable.
AN ORDER OF DETENTION CAN ONLY BE VALIDLY PASSED IF THE DETAINING AUTHORITY HAS REASON TO BELIEVE, ON THE BASIS OF RELIABLE MATERIAL, THAT THERE IS A REAL POSSIBILITY OF THE DETENU BEING RELEASED ON ....
Preventive detention orders must consider the detenu's existing custody and provide cogent reasons for necessity; failure to do so renders the order illegal.
Failure to consider and furnish conditional bail orders in a preventive detention order renders the detention illegal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.