APHC010316582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.15808 of 2025 Between: 1. PONNADA GEETHA, W/O. PONNADA NOOKARAJU, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O PADMANABHA NAGAR MUNCIPALITY SCHOOL, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15808 of 2025 1. D. PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15808 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.15808 of 2025 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondent No.4 to produce the person by name Ponnada Prasanth Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’), who is detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, and to order for his release forthwith, after declaring the order of preventive detention dated 29.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2, which, in turn, was confirmed by respondent No.1-State by G.O.Rt.No.1123, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 09.06.2025, as illegal and unconstitutional. 2. Facts germane to dispose of the writ petition may be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. There are about eight crimes registered against the detenu. The 2nd respondent- Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, has taken into consideration four crimes out of the said eight crimes registered against him, which are mentioned below: 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15808 of 2025 1) Crime No.238 of 2022 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 427 of IPC. 2) Crime No.111 of 2023 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 509 of IPC. 3) Crime No.207 of 2023 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 and 323 of IPC. 4) Crime No.219 of 2024 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, ‘NDPS Act’). As three crimes relating to the offences punishable under IPC and one crime relating to the offence punishable under NDPS Act were registered against the detenu, the 2nd respondent was of the opinion that the acts of the detenu in indulging himself in commission of those offences repeatedly are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The 2nd respondent was also of the opinion that there is a need to initiate proceedings for the preventive detention of the detenu, in the larger interest of maintenance of public order. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(2) of the Andhra 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15808 of 2025 Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and while taking into consideration the aforesaid four crimes, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order of preventive detention dated 29.04.2025 against the detenu. The 1st respondent-State, in turn, has confirmed the said order of preventive detention dated 29.04.2025 in G.O.Rt.No.1123, General Administration (SC-I) dated 09.06.2025. Pursuant to the preventive detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 29.04.2025, the detenu has been detained in the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, since 02.05.2025. 3. The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, sought to assail the impugned order of preventive detention mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the detenue was enlarged on bail in all the said four crimes which were taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent as basis for passing the impugned order of detention and the said orders of bail are not placed before the 2nd respondent, who is the competent authority for passing the preventive detention order, and failure to place the said relevant material before the detaining authority before passing the impugned order of detention vitiates the order of preventive detention as per settled law. The other ground is that copies of the said bail orders shall also be supplied to the detenu to enable him to file 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15808 of 2025 appropriate reply/representation and failure to supply the same caused prejudice to him in filing such reply/representation. Therefore, on these two principal grounds, the petitioner assails the legal validity of the impugned order of detention, as confirmed by the State, and thereby, prays to set aside the said orders on the ground that they are illegal and unconstitutional and to order for release of the detenu forthwith and to set him at liberty. 4. Learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General would contend that the detenu was not granted bail in all the four crimes and he was enlarged on bail only in one crime i.e., Crime No.219 of 2024 of Gopalapatnam Police Station registered for the offence punishable under NDPS Act and in two crimes i.e., Crime No.238 of 2022 of Gopalapatnam Police Station and Crime No.207 of 2023 of Pendurthy Police Station registered for the offences punishable under IPC, only notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was given to him and after enquiry, he was set at liberty and was not taken into custody and that in the other crime i.e., Crime No.111 of 2023 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, he was acquitted on account of compromise arrived at between him and the defacto complainant in the Lok Adalat. Therefore, learned Government Pleader submits that it is false to contend by the petitioner that the detenu was enlarged on bail in all the four crimes. 7 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15808 of 2025 5. While admitting the fact that the copy of the bail order in Crime No.219 of 2024 of Gopalapatnam Police Station was not placed before the detaining authority and that the copy of the said bail order was also not supplied to the detenu, learned Government Pleader would further contend that mere non-supply of copy of the order of bail to the detenu, by itself, will not vitiate the order of detention and it is for the detenu to show that prejudice is caused to him on account of non- supply of a copy of the order of bail and he must explain what was the prejudice that was caused to him in filing his reply. He contends that the petitioner simply pleaded that prejudice was caused to the detenu on account of non-supply of copy of the order of bail and it is not explained in detail as to what prejudice was caused to the detenu precisely. In support of his contention, he relied on the observations of the Apex Court in the decision rendered in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India1 in paragraph 14, wherein it is held as follows: “….It is not sufficient to say that the detenus were not supplied the copies of the documents in time on demand but it must further be shown that the non-supply has impaired the detenu’s right to make an effective and purposeful representation. Demand of any or every document, however irrelevant it may be for the concerned detenu, merely on the ground that there is a reference thereto in the grounds of detention, cannot vitiate an otherwise legal detention order. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but what is 1 (1991) 1 SCC 128 8 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15808 of 2025 essential is that the detenu must show that the failure to supply the documents before the meeting of the Advisory Board had impaired or prejudiced his right, however slight or insignificant it may be. In the present case, except stating that the documents were not supplied before the meeting of the Advisory Board, there is no pleading that it had resulted in the impairment of his right nor could counsel for the petitioners point out any such prejudice. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the Bombay High Court in this behalf is unassailable.” Learned Government Pleader would, therefore, strongly support the impugned order of detention and the order of confirmation made by the State and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. We have meticulously considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State. 7. As per the settled law, there are two requirements which are to be complied with by the detaining authority to sustain the impugned order of detention. When the order of detention was passed on the ground that the detenu was involved in certain crimes and that his acts in repeatedly committing the said crimes are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and to maintain public tranquility, if it is the case of the sponsoring authority that the detenu was released on bail in one or all the crimes and the fact is made basis for passing the order 9 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15808 of 2025 of preventive detention, copies of the said orders of bail shall be placed before the detaining authority to consider the same and apply his mind to decide whether there is need to pass any order of prevention detention or not. If the order of bail is placed before the detaining authority, then a copy of the said order shall also be supplied to the detenu to enable him to file an appropriate reply/representation and if no such copy of the bail order is supplied to him and if it causes any prejudice to him, he has to explain what is the prejudice that is caused to him. 8. In the instant case, considering the admitted facts, there is no necessity to deal with the second requirement. Learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that even if the detenu was enlarged on bail in one crime i.e., Crime No.219 of 2024 of Gopalapatnam Police Station relating to the offence under NDPS Act, copy of the said order of bail was not placed before the detaining authority i.e., the 2nd respondent before passing the impugned order of detention. Thus, the question of supplying the copy of the said order of bail to the detenu would not arise when it was not even placed before the detaining authority at the time of passing the order of detention. For that reason, we are not dealing with the second requirement. 9. However, as per the settled law, the very fact that the order of bail granted to the detenu in Crime No.219 of 2024 of Gopalapatnam 10 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15808 of 2025 Police Station for the offence under NDPS Act, was not placed before the detaining authority, while passing the impugned order of detention, by itself, is sufficient to hold that it vitiates the impugned order of detention. The legal position in this regard is fairly well settled. 10. The Division Bench of the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh had an occasion to elaborately deal with the said legal position in the case of Vasanthu Sumalatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh2. At paragraph 44 of the said judgment, it is held as follows: “44. When a person is enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinizing the validity of an order of preventive detention, which is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the criminal court. (Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [(1984) 3 SCC 14]; Jotha Viswanadh v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of A.P. [Judgment in W.P.No.10018 of 2012, dated 29.06.2012 (APHC) (DB)]. Where the detenu is released on bail, and is enjoying his freedom under the order of the court, the order of bail must be placed before the detaining authority, when the order of detention is passed, to enable him to reach a proper satisfaction. (Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 2 SCC 72]. If the detaining authority was unaware of the order of bail, the detention order is rendered invalid as the Court cannot attempt to assess in what manner, and to what extent, consideration of the order granting bail to the detenu would have effected the satisfaction of the detaining authority 2 (2016) 1 ALT 738 (DB) 11 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15808 of 2025 in passing the order of preventive detention (Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite (42 supra); Rekha (5 supra); Jotha Viswanadh (44 supra).” 11. At paragraph 42 of the said judgment, it is also held by the Division Bench of the common High Court that it is incumbent that all vital materials are placed before the detaining authority to enable him to arrive at the subjective satisfaction as to the necessity for passing an order of detention, as decided in M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India3 and State of U.P. v. Kamal Kishore Saini4. Therefore, it is held that the bail order is a vital material for consideration and if it is not considered, the satisfaction of the detaining authority would be impaired. 12. Thus, it is obvious from the analogy and the legal position decided in the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the common High Court, which is binding on this Court, that when the detenu was already released on bail in a crime and when it was made basis for passing the order of preventive detention and when the said order of bail was not placed before the detaining authority, it vitiates the impugned order of preventive detention. Therefore, in view of the law enunciated in the above judgment, as the order of bail is admittedly not placed before the 2nd respondent when he has passed 3 (1990) 2 SCC 1 4 (1988) 1 SCC 287 12 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15808 of 2025 the impugned order of preventive detention, the impugned order of preventive detention is vitiated and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 13. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention dated 29.04.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent against the detenu, by name Ponnada Prasanth Babu @ babu, and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.1123, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 09.06.2025, issued by the 1st respondent-State, confirming the said order of preventive detention. The detenu, by name Ponnada Prasanth Babu @ babu, shall be released forthwith and shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY ______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 03.11.2025 IBL 13 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15808 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.15808 of 2025 Dt: 03.11.2025 IBL