Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao and Mrs. Kiranmayee Mandava, JJ.
Seesali Durga – Appellant
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondent
WP No.29694 of 2023
Decided on : 02-01-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. habeas corpus filed against detention order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. previous criminal cases against detenue considered for detention. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments on non-furnishing bail orders in defense of detention. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 4. court's analysis on the detaining authority's non-application of mind. (Para 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. court’s observations on procedural violations affecting the legality of detention. (Para 7) |
| 6. writ petition allowed; detention order set aside. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
Mrs. KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J
1. Present writ of habeas corpus is filed challenging the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in No.REV02-MGSTOLWOD/39/2023-MAGCCLA dated 24.07.2023, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. No.1847 dated 19.09.2023.
2. The petitioner is wife of the detenue viz., Seesali Ramesh. Petitioner contends that the order of detention was passed against her husband by the 2nd respondent, treating him as "drug offender" as defined under Section 2 (f) of the provisions of the A.P. Prevention of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short Act 1 of 1986). The order of detention was approved and confirmed vide G.O. Rt. No.1847 proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 01.08.2023 and 19.09.2023.
3. The following cases, which were registered against the detenue, under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were taken into consideration while passing the order of detention :
| Sl. No. | Cr.No. & Sec. of Law | Date of offence | Sl. No. | Cr.No. & Sec. of Law |
| 1 | Cr.No.166 of 2021 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8 (C) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Madugula Police Station. | 13.06.2021 | 1 | Cr.No.166 of 2021 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8 (C) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Madugula Police Station. |
| 2 | Cr.No.374 of 2022 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. | 12.07.2022 | 2 | Cr.No.374 of 2022 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. |
| 3 | Cr.No.13 of 2023 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8 (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Pedabayalu Police Station. | 11.05.2023 | 3 | Cr.No.13 of 2023 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8 (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Pedabayalu Police Station. |
| 4 | Cr.No.74 of 2023 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8 (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Paderu Police Station. | 04.06.2023 | 4 | Cr.No.74 of 2023 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8 (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Paderu Police Station. |
4. The petitioner contends that in two cases viz., Crime Nos.166 of 2021 and 374 of 2022, the detenue was granted bail and the sponsoring authority did not place the said material before the detaining authority. And that the said cases were registered against him based on the source of so called confessional statement of the co-accused in the said cases. It is her further contention that the material relied upon by the detaining authority and the subsequent developments such as the approval of the order of preventive detention were not supplied to the detenue within the stipulated period. Further, the provisions of the respective Acts under which, the crimes were registered against him would provide for necessary penal action against the detenue if he was to be found guilty and therefore resorting to the imposition of detention is a deterrent act which curtails the freedom of an individual. Hence, the writ petition.
5. The 2nd respondent filed his counter-affidavit. He states that in Cr.No.374 of 2022, the detenue was arrested on 12.07.2022; in Cr.No.13 of 2023, PT warrant was executed against the accused and he was not arrested; in Cr.No.74 of 2023, he was arrested on 20.07.2023; in Cr.No.166 of 2021, he was arrested and was released. He states that the detenue did not apply to the authorities seeking supply of copies. He
The court ruled that failing to consider vital bail orders when issuing a detention renders the detention order illegal, violating constitutional rights of the individual.
Non-consideration of bail orders in preventive detention renders the detention order illegal, impairing the detenue's right to make an effective representation.
Non-consideration of bail orders and failure to furnish bail order copies to the detenue for effective representation would vitiate the detention order, rendering it illegal and unsustainable.
Failure to consider and furnish conditional bail orders in a preventive detention order renders the detention illegal.
Preventive detention – Non consideration of bail orders while passing order of detention and non-furnishing of copies of bail orders to detenu, would render order of detention illegal and unsustainab....
Procedural irregularities and failure to consider the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail rendered the detention order illegal and unsustainable.
Preventive detention orders must consider all relevant material, including granted bail orders; failure to do so renders the detention invalid.
Non-consideration of relevant material, such as bail orders, can render a detention order illegal.
Preventive detention valid despite bail if authority aware of custody and provides cogent reasons for release likelihood and prejudicial risk; absent here due to non-similar case reliance.
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
