Radhika vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1915 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1915 AP
Judgement Date : 13 April, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Radhika 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.35813 of 2022

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice V.Srinivas)
      In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of

detention of her husband Bandikaalla Rathna Raju @ Theja,

S/o.Subbarao, in order of detention vide REV-CSECOPDL(PRC)/2/2022-

D.TH(C7), dt.01.04.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent-The Collector &

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

respondent-the State as per G.O.Rt.No.1240, General Administration

(SC.I) Department, dated 27.06.2022 and prays to direct the

respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

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

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')

and passed the impugned order of detention. The said order of

detention came to be confirmed by the Government vide

G.O.Rt.No.1240, General Administration (SC.I) Department,

27.06.2022.

3. 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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 10 cases

which were registered against the detenue, almost of all the cases he

was granted bail and the same are old cases and due to non-furnishing

of bail orders and other material, the detenue lost opportunity to

submit an effective representation before the concerned authorities.

5. He further submits that the detaining authority did not supply

the material relied on by them within the stipulated period of five days

and only the order and grounds of detention along with material

supplied after about 3 weeks, but the subsequent developments such

as approval and confirmation of the order of preventive detention were

not informed to the detenue, thereby, it vitiates the entire order of

preventive detention.

6. 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. 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 warrants any interference

of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. 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 discussed

the law laid down in Gattu Kavitha v. State of Telangana1 case and

Rushikesh Thanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharastra2 case and three

judge Bench judgment of Apex Court in Rekha v. State of Tamilnadu3

case, in which 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".

9. After considering the above, W.P.No.30649 of 2022 was allowed

granting relief in favour of the petitioner in the said Writ Petition. The

issues in this case are also similar. The vital aspect of bail granted and

its impact is not considered. Similarly, the fact that the detenue was

in judicial custody is not taken note of as required and the further

satisfaction that needs to be recorded that he will commit further

crimes is not clear. It merely reiterated that there is a likelihood of his

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

being granted bail in other cases. It is not clear how the authority came

to the conclusion that the ordinary law is not sufficient to stop the

alleged crimes. This Court could not find that the order of detention

refers to clear material to either substantiate or justify the said