A preventive detention order is invalid if the detaining authority fails to consider relevant bail orders, undermining the legal basis for detention.

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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd respondent has passed the impugned order of preventive detention dated 29.04.2025 against the detenu. The 1^st 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 2^nd 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 2^nd respondent as basis for passing the impugned order of detention and the said orders of bail are not placed before the 2^nd respondent, who is the competent authority for passing the preventive detention order, and failure to place the said relevant material before the detaini