Ragineni Venkateswarlu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1912 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1912 AP
Judgement Date : 13 April, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Ragineni Venkateswarlu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 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.37357 of 2022


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

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

detention    of   his    son   Ragineni   Sanjeev   Kumar,   S/o.Ragineni

Venkateswarlu, in order of detention vide Rc.C1/908/M/2022,

dt.07.09.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent-The Collector & District

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

respondent-the State as per G.O.Rt.No.2301, General Administration

(SC.I) Department, dated 01.11.2022 and prays to direct the

respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Nandyal District, Nandyal,

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.2301,

General Administration (SC.I) Department, 01.11.2022.

3. Heard Sri S.V.Ruthvik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Syed Khader Mastan, learned counsel attached to the office of learned

Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all the cases

i.e., 9 in number, the detenue was already granted bail even before

the detention and wife of the detenue made a representation, dated

25.09.2022 to the 2nd respondent, but the same was not considered by

the authorities and in view of inordinate delay in considering the

representation, the preventive detention order is illegal. In support of

his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon

judgments of this Court reported in Moganti Srihar Rao v. The

Commissioner of Police1 and judgments of Apex Court reported in

P.Aruna Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh2 and Rashid Kapadia v.

Medha Gadgil3, with regard to unexplained delay in considering the

representation.

5. 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.

1 1997 (2) Crimes(HC) 690 2 2020 (5) ALT 139 3 2012 (11) SCC 745

6. 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 Telangana4

case and Rushikesh Thanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharastra5 case and

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

Tamilnadu6 case, in which the principle followed and the Apex Court

held as follows:

"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".

7. After considering similar issues in W.P.No.30649 of 2022, this

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

petitioner in the said Writ Petition. This Court notices that the aspect

of bail being granted in all cases was not denied in the counter. The

issue is not even referred to in the detention order. It is clear that the

sponsoring authority did not place them before the Detaining Authority.

4 2017(1) ALD Crl.224 5 (2012) 2 SCC 72 6 2011 (5) SCC 244

The issue of submission of a representation is denied in the counter.

No proof of service of the representation is there. Hence, the said issue

is not considered.

8. Having regard to the above, in the present case also the

detenue will not fall under the category of Section 2(g) of the Act and