The division judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that there is no bar in passing an order of detention against a person in jail. However, the detaining authority must give a finding that there is a possibility of the detenue being released in from jail in the near future. This finding must be supported by cogent reasons.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that while detenue was in judicial custody, the order of detention was passed. The detention order was passed on the grounds that detenue was involved in 8 cases. The present petition is filed by the brother of the detenue in order to challenge the detention order.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the detention order was passed while he was in judicial custody and there was no mention of the fact that he was in jail when the order was passed. It was also not mentioned that there was an imminent possibility of the detenue being released from jail due to which there is a necessity of passing a detention order to keep the detenue in prison. It was furthermore contended that the order of detention has been passed by treating the detenue under the category of Drug Offender as well as Goonda. The same is not permissible as the order of detention would have to be passed on the ground that the detenue is either a Goonda or a Drug Offender.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that the order of detention was passed after categorizing the detenue under both categories of Drug Offender and Goonda as the detenue was involved in three cases under the NDPS Act and the remaining cases under the provisions of I.P.C., and there is no bar in passing an order of detention by categorizing the detenue under both the above categories.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that passing a detention order against a person detained is not prohibited. However, the authority in charge of the detention must conclude that there is a chance the detainee will be released from custody soon. This conclusion must be substantiated by compelling reasons, such as the existence of pending bail applications for the offenses the detainee committed, the granting of bail to a co-accused who is in a similar situation, or the granting of bail to the detainee in cases that are similar to this one, increasing the likelihood that the detainee will be granted bail in the remaining cases as well. This is merely an example list and is not exhaustive.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Rameshwar Shaw vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan, Rekha v. State of T.N., and Champion R. Sangma vs. State of Meghalaya and Anr.
The court noted that in the instant order, no finding was recorded regarding that there is possibility of detenue being released from jail due to which there is a need to detain the detenue in jail to prevent him from committing similar offences which would affect the public order.
Based on these considerations, the court quashed the order of detention.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the writ petition.
Case Title: Dadi Durgababu V. The State Of Ap and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R Raghunandan Rao, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harinath. N
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO: 5658/2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: PRUDVI RAJU MUDUNURI
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
