Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH.N, JJ.
Shaik Akhila - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8626 of 2024
Decided On : 05-07-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. detenue's criminal history and detention order details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's grounds for challenging detention. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. government's arguments supporting the detention. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal clarity on detention while in custody. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. writ petition ruling and order to set detenue free. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri Manikanta Thota, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Teja, learned Special G.P. in the office of the learned Advocate General.
2. The detenue in the present case was arrayed as an accused in the following cases –
| Sl.No. | Crime No. and date | Police Station | Offences under Sections |
| 1. | Crime No.296/2019 | Lalapet Police Station | U/S 143, 120 (b), 435 r/w 34 of I.P.C& Sec 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act, 1985 |
| 2. | Crime No.297/2019 | Lalapet Police Station | U/S 143, 120 (b), 435 r/w 34 of I.P.C& Sec 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act, 1985 |
| 3. | Crime No.298/2019 | Lalapet Police Station | U/S 143, 120 (b), 435 r/w 34 of I.P.C& Sec 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act, 1985 |
| 4. | Crime No.299/2019 | Lalapet Police Station | U/S 143, 120 (b), 435 r/w 34 of I.P.C& Sec 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act, 1985 |
| 5 | Crime No.303/2019 | Lalapet Police Station | U/S 143, 120 (b), 435 r/w 34 of I.P.C& Sec 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act, 1985 |
| 6 | Crime No.214/2023 | Lalapet Police Station | U/s 394 of I.P.C. |
| 7 | Crime No.210/2023 | Lalapet Police Station | U/s 384 of I.P.C. |
| 8 | Crime No.653/2023 Nallapadu | Police Station | U/s 384 of I.P.C. |
| 9 | Crime No.212/2023 Kothapet | Police Station | U/s 386 of I.P.C. |
3. The detenue was arrested in Crime No.214 of 2023 of Lalapet Police Station and sent to judicial custody. While he was in jail, the 2nd respondent passed an order of detention on 14.07.2023, under Section 2 (g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). This order of detention was approved by the 1st respondent, by way of G.O.Rt.No.1468, dated 25.07.2023 and thereafter, confirmed by G.O.Rt.No.1845, dated 19.09.2023. The grounds of detention recorded the 9 cases mentioned above. The order of detention against the detenue was passed on the ground that the said 9 cases of arson, unlawful assembly, conspiracy, extortion and robbery showed a consistent behaviour of committing criminal offences and that the detenue would continue to indulge in such offences unless he is prevented from committing these offences by detaining him in prison. The grounds of detention also state that 9 cases mentioned above are of such a nature as to disturb public order.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of detention and subsequent confirmation by the 1st respondent, the mother of the detenue has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
5. Sri Manikanta Thota, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following grounds:
a) The 2nd respondent had not recorded any satisfaction that there was a likelihood of the detenue being released from judicial custody and the absence of recording such satisfaction would be fatal to the detention order. For this purpose, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Champion R. Sangma vs. State of Meghalaya and Anr.,(2015) 16 SCC 253 and the judgments of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1803 of 2021 and W.P.No.3359 of 2024.
b) The offences set out in the detention order are offences of ordinary nature, which can be dealt with by the regular Criminal Law provisions and there is no need to invoke the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
c) The offences set out in the detention order do not affect the public order and in any event there is no discussion on the question of whether such offences alleged to have been committed by the detenue affected the public order.
d) Section 9 of the Act requires the dete
A detention order against a person already in custody must show a likelihood of release based on cogent factors to avoid invalidity.
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.
Preventive detention orders must consider the detenu's existing custody and provide cogent reasons for necessity; failure to do so renders the order illegal.
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.
The detaining authority must have a subjective satisfaction based on material available on record, and the order of detention cannot be based on mere apprehension. The detaining authority must also c....
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....
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
