Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 1196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, JJ.
Ponnada Geetha W/o. Ponnada Nookaraju - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No.15808 of 2025
Decided On : 03-11-2025
Important Points
Subject
Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOT LEGGERS, DACOITS, DRUG OFFENDERS, GOONDAS IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFENDERS AND LAND GRABBERS ACT : S.3(2)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.41(a)
Headnote
(B) Legal Standards - The detaining authority must be fully informed of all relevant materials, especially bail orders, to ensure lawful detention. The failure to do so results in violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who faces multiple criminal charges. Challenges to the detention were based on the arguments that bail orders were not considered by the authority.
Findings of Court:
The preventive detention order was held invalid due to failure to consider the critical bail orders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the detaining authority's failure to consider bail orders justified setting aside the detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of consideration of bail orders directly impacts the validity of the preventive detention order, highlighting the need for transparency in such administrative decisions.
Result: Writ Petition allowed, detention order set aside.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D. Purnachandra Reddy
For the Respondent:ADDL. Advocate General
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of detention and prior offenses. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal arguments against preventive detention based on bail. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's assessment of legal requirements for detention validity. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. legal rationale underscoring the invalidation of the detention order. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final decision and implications for the detenu. (Para 13) |
ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondent No.4 to produce the person by name Ponnada Prasanth Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’), who is detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, and to order for his release forthwith, after declaring the order of preventive detention dated 29.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2, which, in turn, was confirmed by respondent No.1-State by G.O.Rt.No.1123, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 09.06.2025, as illegal and unconstitutional.
2. Facts germane to dispose of the writ petition may be briefly stated as follows:
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. There are about eight crimes registered against the detenu. The 2nd respondent- Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, has taken into consideration four crimes out of the said eight crimes registered against him, which are mentioned below:
1) Crime No.238 of 2022 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 427 of IPC.
2) Crime No.111 of 2023 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2) 3 and 509 of IPC.
3) Crime No.207 of 2023 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 and 323 of IPC.
4) Crime No.219 of 2024 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, ‘NDPS Act’).
As three crimes relating to the offences punishable under IPC and one crime relating to the offence punishable under NDPS Act were registered against the detenu, the 2nd respondent was of the opinion that the acts of the detenu in indulging himself in commission of those offences repeatedly are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The 2nd respondent was also of the opinion that there is a need to initiate proceedings for the preventive detention of the detenu, in the larger interest of maintenance of public order. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(2) 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’) and while taking into consideration the aforesaid four crimes, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order of preventive detention dated 29.04.2025 against the detenu. The 1st respondent-State, in turn, has confirmed the said order of preventive detention dated 29.04.2025 in G.O.Rt.No.1123, General Administration (SC-I) dated 09.06.2025. Pursuant to the preventive detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 29.04.2025, the detenu has been detained in the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, since 02.05.2025.
3. The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, sought to assail the impugned order of preventive detention mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the detenue was enlarged on bail in all the said four crimes which were taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent as basis for passing the impugned order of detention and the said orders of bail are not placed before the 2nd respondent, who is the competent authority for passing the preventive detention order, and failure to place the said relevant material before the detaini
