Detention orders must be based on adequate factual supports and clear legal justifications, ensuring compliance with procedural standards and the right to a fair hearing.

JUDGMENT :

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

1. Heard Sri Inkollu Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in the office of the learned Advocate General.

-

2. The petitioner herein has moved the present writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to set aside the order of detention, dated 22.01.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent and subsequent G.O.Rt.No.217 dated 31.01.2025 and G.O.Rt.No.466 dated 06.03.2025 and to set at liberty her husband, who is the detenue.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Palnadu District, is said to have forwarded a request, dated 02.12.2024, for detaining the detenue under the provisions of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Legers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Detention Act’). The Collector and District Magistrate, Palnadu District by order dated 22.01.2025 in RC.No.150/2024-C1, after verifying the detention proposals and material placed before him, passed an order of detention for detaining the detenue Sri Uribandi Manneaiah, in central prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, A.P., until further orders are received from the Government. The Government of A.P. had issued G.O.Rt.No.217, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 31.01.2025, approving the said order of detention and fixing the period of detention to be for a period of 12 months from 23.01.2025. The Advisory Board, after considering the representation of the detenue and after hearing the detenue as well as the investigating officer in its meeting held on 18.02.2025, had opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenue. On the basis of the above proceedings and the recommendation of the Advisory Board, the Government of A.P., again issued G.O.Rt.No.466, dated 06.03.2025, confirming the detention of the detenue for a period of 12 months from 23.01.2025.

-

4. These proceedings are challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

5. The 2nd respondent, who had initially passed the order of detention, dated 22.01.2025, filed a counter affidavit along with all the relevant material.

6. The aforesaid orders are challenged, on the basis of the following grounds:

A) All the necessary documents, which are required to be supplied to the detenue, have not been served on the detenue.

a) the request of the Superintendent of Police, Palnadud District dated 02.12.2024, which is the basis for detention order, has not be served on the detenue:

b) The case papers including the F.I.Rs, judgments and Lok Adalat Awards pertaining to 8 cases referred in the detention order, have not been served on the detenue.

The petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court - Jaseela Shaji vs. Union of India and Ors. (2024) 9 SCC 53 : 2024 SCC Online SC 2496 : 2024 INSC 683 contends that non-supply of these documents is fatal to the detention proceedings.

-

B) The detaining authority viz., the 2nd respondent, while recording the grant of bail to the petitioner i in various crimes, did not take - into account the conditions attached to such bail orders and whether such conditions would be sufficient to prevent further Involvement of the detenuel in any illegal activity.

C) The detaining authority considered seven criminal cases, in his order of detention to hold that the detenue was a habitual offender, who also meets the definition of “Goonda” set out under the Detention Act. The definition of “Goonda” set out in the Detention Act, at Section 2 (g), stipulates that