Kunchepu Sarojamma vs The State Of Ap
2023 Latest Caselaw 1850 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1850 AP
Judgement Date : 11 April, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kunchepu Sarojamma vs The State Of Ap on 11 April, 2023

Bench: D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, V Srinivas

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                              AND
               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

                      WRIT PETITION No.867 of 2023


ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice V.Srinivas)

       In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of

detention of her son Kunchepu Raghavendra @ Vadde Raghavendra @

Raghu,    S/o.Kunchepu      Ravi,    in   order   of   detention    vide

Rc.C1/987/M/2022, dt.15.09.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent-The

Collector & District Magistrate, Nandyal District as confirmed by the 1st

respondent-the State as per G.O.Rt.No.2505, General Administration

(SC.I) Department, dated 22.11.2022 and prays to direct the

respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

3. The Collector and District Magistrate, Nandyal District, while

categorizing the detenue as "Goonda" within the definition of Section

2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,

Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land

Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act 1 of 1986') passed the impugned

order of detention. The said order of detention came to be confirmed

by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.2505, General Administration (SC.I)

Department, 22.11.2022.

4. Heard Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Syed Khader Mastan, learned counsel attached to the

office of learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 nd respondent

supplied a paper book, in which no information was given about the

developments or other details, such as approving or confirming the

order of detention. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that having waited for a considerable period as there are no further

details about the prevention of detention order and they were put on

dark about the details of preventive detention and that as her son is

already languishing in Central Prison, Kadapa this case is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the

order of preventive detention, it is stated that there are 10 different

cases were registered against her son, out of which in six cases, his son

was already released on bail and the same was suppressed as it is a

vital information and this was not considered. In view of non-furnishing

the information regarding the bail orders, the detenue could not

submit an effective representation before the concerned authorities,

thereby, it vitiates the entire order of preventive detention. It is

brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the writ

petitioner that the issue in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered

by the order of this Court in W.P.No.30649 of 2022, dated 06.03.2023.

A copy of the said order is placed on record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

seventh ground (Cr.No.92 of 2021 of Mahanandi Police Station Under

Section 110 Cr.P.C.,) is only a bound over case, which is described under

Section 110 Cr.P.C., in fact, he submits that our High Court and several

High Courts deprecated the practice of registering the F.I.R. on bound

over procedures as it is a non existing case. Further eight to tenth

grounds are about his involvement in arrack cases under Prohibition

and Excise Act, which were not covered under Act 1 of 1986.

8. On the other hand, reiterating the averments made in the

counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is submitted by Sri Syed

Khader Mastan, learned counsel attached to the office of Additional

Advocate General that having regard to the gravity of the offences, the

orders impugned in the Writ Petition do not warrant any interference

of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and he relied

upon a judgment reported between Sunila Jain v. Union of India1.

9. A perusal of the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by this Court in

W.P.No.30649 of 2022 clearly demonstrates that this court after

discussing the law laid down in Gattu Kavitha v. State of Telangana2

case and Rushikesh Thanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharastra3 case and

three judge Bench judgment of Apex Court in Rekha v. State of

Tamilnadu4 case, in which the Apex Court held as follows:

1 2006 (3)SCC 321 2 2017(1) ALD Crl.224 3 (2012) 2 SCC 72 4 2011 (5) SCC 244

"The detaining authority was not even aware whether a bail application of the accused was pending when he passed the detention order, rather the detaining authority passed the detention order under the impression that no bail application of the accused was pending, but in similar cases bail had been granted by the courts. We have already stated above that no details of alleged similar cases have been given. Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained".

10. After considering above, all those issues that have been raised

in the present Writ Petition, were similar to the allegation raised in the

aforesaid Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.30649 of 2022 and this Court

allowed the said Writ Petition and granted relief in favour of the

petitioner in the said Writ Petition.

11. In this case also the fact that the detenue was granted bail in

many cases is not considered. The cases under Sec 110 Cr P C are bound

over cases and are not criminal cases in the sense of the word. Lastly,

cases under the Prohibition and Excise laws do not justify the

categorization of the person as a Goonda as per the law laid down by

this Court.

12. Having regard to all of the above, in the present case also the