IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention – Non consideration of bail orders while passing order of detention and non-furnishing of copies of bail orders to detenu, would render order of detention illegal and unsustainable.

ORDER

Kiranmayee Mandava, J.—This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Habeas Corpus by declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, in detaining Sri Nagunuri Murali, S/o.Nagunuri Bhaskar, vide order dated 30-09-2023 in RC.No.C1/1388/M/2023, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.2378 General Administration (Spl.(Law and Order)), Department, dated 08-12-2023, as illegal, unconstitutional and sought for set aside of the same and set the detenue at liberty.

2. The writ petitioner is wife of the detenue, Sri Nagunuri Murali S/o.Nagunuri Bhaskar. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 30-09-2023, 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.2378 dated 08-12-2023, 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 following are the cases, which have been taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent, while placing the detenue under detention:—

3. The petitioner contends that out of eleven (11) cases registered against the detenue, three (3) cases were registered U/s.41(2) Cr.P.C. under reasonable suspicion and the detenue was released on bail on executing bond. Out of two cases that were registered under Sec.379 IPC, petitioner represents that one case was settled before Lok Adalat, The petitioner represents that one (1) case was registered u/s.363 r.w.s.34 IPC, in which the detenue was shown as accused No.3, in which he was arrested and released on bail. The remaining five (5) cases, the petitioner represents that the same relate to offences registered under the provisions of Sec.20(b)(ii) of NDPS Act. The petitioner contends that out of eleven (11) crimes, in three (3) crimes, the Awards passed by the Lok Adalat in the said cases were also not furnished to the detenue enabling him to submit his representation. She further contends that the detaining authority while passing the order of detention has taken into consideration certain stale cases, and three (3) cases were booked under preventive measure, and the detenue had to bound over, which in any event, was only for a period of six (6) months. And one (1) case which was compromised was also taken into consideration while passing the order of detention. The petitioner submits that the detenue was arrested in one (1) case at the spot, whereas in respect of the other cases, the petitioner submits that the detenue was implicated on the basis of confessional statement made by the co-accused.