Back
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Jambu Sujatha – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT ;
Mrs. KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J :
1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of habeas corpus by declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, in detaining Sri Jambu Ramesh, S/o. Balaiah vide order dated 27.07.2023 in No.Re:C1/309/M/2023, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. No.1916, dated 25.09.2023, as illegal and unconstitutional.
2. The writ petitioner is wife of the detenue, Sri Jambu Ramesh. The petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 27.07.2023, passed an order of detention under Section 3 (1) & (2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, (for short "Act No.1 of 1986"), placing the detenue under detention in Central Prison, Cuddapah. The said order of detention was confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. No.1916, dated 25.09.2023, treating the detenue as 'Drug Offender' as defined under Section 3 (1) and 3(2) of the Act 1 of 1986. The following are the cases that have been taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent, while placing the detenue under detention :
| Sl. No. | Crime No. | Provision of law | Date of offen | |
Preventive detention cannot rely on stale incidents lacking immediate proximity; a legitimate link must support the necessity of detention based on past conduct.
Preventive detention orders must be based on recent and relevant conduct of the detenue, demonstrating a clear link to future risks; reliance on stale offences without recorded justification renders ....
Preventive detention requires a live and proximate link between past conduct and current need to detain; stale incidents cannot justify detention without immediate threat to public order.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that preventive detention should be based on a reasonable prognosis of the person's future behavior, with a focus on the proximity in time between ....
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....
The validity of a preventive detention order hinges on the detaining authority's access to all relevant materials, and omissions can invalidate the order.
It is evident from allegations made by witnesses in the in-camera statement that the solitary assault on one individual/individuals can hardly be said to disturb the public peace or bring public orde....
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of the likelihood of release and necessity for detention; vague assertions are insufficient.
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
