Back
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Mohammad Arif – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Chief Secretary – Respondent
ORDER
Kiranmayee Mandava, J.—This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Habeas Corpus by declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, in detaining Shaik Khaja @ Kaalu, S/o. Shaik Mohammad Rafi, vide order dated 25.08.2023 in RC. No.MC1/2446/2023, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.2115 General Administration (Spl. (Law and Order)), Department, dated 30.10.2023, as illegal and unconstitutional.
2. The writ petitioner is brother of the detenue, Sri Shaik Khaja @ Kaalu, S/o. Shaik Mohammad Rafi. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 25.08.2023, passed an order of detention under Sec 3(1) & (2) read with Sec.2(f) of the A.P Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, (Act No.1 of 1986), placing the detenue under detention in Central Prison, Kadapa. The said order of detention was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.2115 dated 30.10.2023, treating the detenue as “Goonda” as defined under Sec.2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The
Preventive detention – Unless offences alleged to have been committed by detune are punishable under provisions of Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of IPC, he would not fit into definition....
Preventive detention orders must consider all relevant material, including granted bail orders; failure to do so renders the detention invalid.
The court clarified that a valid order of preventive detention must solely rely on relevant offences fitting the defined categorization, and reliance on irrelevant offences invalidates such orders.
Preventive detention requires a showing of habitual offending; isolated acts may not meet the threshold for detainment under the Act without consistent evidence of antisocial behavior.
Point of law: Detaining authority has not only considered Section 379 IPC but also taken into consideration Section 20 of Forest Act, which is not covered by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in ....
The validity of a preventive detention order hinges on the detaining authority's access to all relevant materials, and omissions can invalidate the order.
The court established that compliance with procedural requirements under the Goonda Act is mandatory for the validity of detention orders, and failure to provide necessary documentation and translati....
Preventive detention orders must provide all relevant documents to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so invalidates the detention.
Preventive detention orders must be based on recent and relevant conduct of the detenue, demonstrating a clear link to future risks; reliance on stale offences without recorded justification renders ....
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
