SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 1470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND MRS. KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, JJ.
Malapolu Venkata Ramana - Appellant
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondent
WP No.30287 of 2023
Decided on : 26-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Kolusu Soundarya

Preventive detention orders must consider all relevant material, including granted bail orders; failure to do so renders the detention invalid.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 - Detention order challenged as illegal - Detenue was granted bail in several cases; relevant bail documents not considered by the detaining authority - Court emphasizes the need for procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases - Order of detention set aside as it failed to consider vital material. (Paras 4, 5, 10, 12, and 13)

(B) Preventive Detention - Legal safeguards - Court reaffirmed that non-consideration of bail orders invalidates detention, highlighting the necessity of due process and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority based on comprehensive evidence. (Paras 7, 11, and 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, mother of the detenue, contests the legality of a detention order issued against her son, citing that he was granted bail in several cases which were not considered in the order.

Findings of Court:
The detention order was found unsustainable due to the failure to consider granted bail orders, rendering it invalid under judicial scrutiny.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the detention order given the non-consideration of bail orders and whether the detenue's categorization as a 'goonda' was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that failing to consider vital and relevant material such as bail orders impairs the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction and invalidates the detention order, affirming procedural safeguards are crucial in the context of preventive detention.

Result: Writ petition allowed; detention order set aside and the detenue ordered to be released.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case and detaining order (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's arguments regarding acquittals and bail (Para 3 , 4)
3. challenges to the validity of the detention order (Para 5 , 7)
4. court's analysis on relevant materials (Para 8 , 10)
5. relevance of previous judgments on detention (Para 11 , 12)
6. conclusion and order to release the detenue (Para 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT

Mrs. KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in MC No.25/M1/PD Act/2023 dated 18.07.2023, as confirmed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings in G.O. Rt. No.1793 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SC-I) Department, dated 07.09.2023 detaining the detenue, Sri Malapolu Siva Naga Mahesh @ Mahesh, S/o. Nagaraju, as illegal and unconstitutional.

2. The petitioner is the mother of the detenue, and she contends that the 2nd respondent vide MC No.25/M1/PDAct/2023 dated 18.07.2023, passed an order of detention under the provisions of Section 3 (1) and 3(2) read with Section 2 (f) of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offender, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, (for short "Act 1 of 1986") treating the detenue as "drug offender" for indulging in activities in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985. It is stated that the detenue was granted bail in all the cases, by the date of detention. The following are the cases that were taken into consideration while passing the order of the detention :

Sl. No.

Crime No.

Provision of law

Police Station

1.

263/2020

U/s.324, 323, 506 r/w. 34 IPC

AS Nagar P.S., Vijayawada

2.

364/2020

U/s. 8(c) r/w. 20(b) of NDPS Act

Ajith Singh Nagar P.S., Vijayawada

3.

90/2020

U/s. 8(c) r/w. 20(b) of NDPS Act

V. Madugula P.S., Anakapalli District

4.

84/2021

U/s. 8(C) r/w 20(b) of NDPS Act

S.N. Puram P.S., Vijayawada

5.

464/2021

U/s. 379 IPC

AS Nagar P.S., Vijayawada

6.

477/2021

U/s. 379 IPC

AS Nagar P.S., Vijayawada

7.

396/2020

U/s.324, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

AS Nagar P.S., Vijayawada

8.

360/2020

U/s.307 r/w 34 of IPC

AS Nagar P.S.,Vijayawada

9.

571/2020

U/s.341, 307 r/w 34 of IPC

AS Nagar P.S., Vijayawada

10.

118/2021

U/s.341, 506 IPC

AS Nagar P.S., Vijayawada

11.

128/2021

U/s.509, 506 IPC

AS Nagar P.S., Vijayawada

12.

165/2021

U/s.448, 506, 509 IPC

AS Nagar P.S., Vijayawada

13.

168/2021

U/s. 384 IPC

AS Nagar P.S., Vijayawada

14.

439/2021

U/s.447, 506, 509 IPC

AS Nagar P.S., Vijayawada

3. It is contended by the petitioner that out of fourteen (14) cases registered against the detenue, in seven (7) cases he was acquitted and two (2) cases he was convicted. It is represented that as on the date of passing of the award, the detenue was in judicial custody in two cases. In the remaining cases he was granted bail. It is further stated that the detenue was not supplied with the copies of the bail orders and factum of the grant of the said bail orders was not taken into consideration.

4. The 2nd respondent filed his counter-affidavit contending that the detenue has committed all the offences. A Rowdy sheet was opened against him on 19.12.2020. And that inspite of continuous watch on his movements by maintaining Rowdy sheet, he did not change his attitude and committed fourteen (14) crimes, which were registered under various penal provisions including the clandestine trade of transport, possession and sale of Ganja which is a prohibited contraband as per the provisions of NDPS Act. It is stated that the detenue is involved in four (4) Ganja cases, two (2) attempt to murder cases (under Section 307 IPC), two (2) theft cases (under Section 379 IPC) and also other offences covered under Chapters-XVI and XVII such as, offences against human being and offences against property

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top