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.

ORDER :

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Manikanta Thota, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The detenue was named as an accused in four criminal cases, whose details are given below:

3. He was arrested in all the above four cases on 29.06.2023. While he was in judicial custody, an order of detention, dated 14.07.2023, was passed by the 2nd respondent. This was approved by the 1st respondent on 25.07.2023 and subsequently confirmed, on 19.09.2023, after receiving the recommendations of the Advisory Committee.

4. The 2nd respondent in his order, dated 14.07.2023, had directed detention of the detenue in Central prison, Rajamahendravaram, for a period of one year. The grounds of detention were that the detenue had been involved in four separate crimes in a matter of four days between 21-06-2023 to 26.06.2023 and the said crimes were committed by targeting isolated areas during night hours, which caused disturbance in public order. The 2nd respondent had also recorded that there was every likelihood of the detenue being enlarged on bail in the above criminal cases and his release would result in further commission of offences, which would be detrimental to the public order.

5. The mother of the detenue moved the present writ petition challenging the order of detention dated 14.07.2023 as well as the subsequent proceedings of approval and confirmation.

6. Sri Manikanta Thota, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though the order of detention was passed on 14.07.2023, the actual period of detention started from 22.07.2023 when the detenue was transferred to Rajahmahendravaram Central Jail.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds for challenging the said order of detention.

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 detention order to be confirmed by an Advisory Committee consisting of persons, who had been Judges of the High Court or were eligible to be appointed as High Court Judges. However, neither the detention order nor any of the subsequent proceedings give details of members of such Advisory Committee and it should be taken that the members of the Advisory Committee except the Chairman, did not meet the requirements of Section 9 of the Act and as such the conformation by the Advisory Committee is invalid.

e) No material was placed by the sponsoring authority before the 2nd respondent to show the involvement of the detenue in any of t