RRR,J & TCDS,J WP_12462_2025 1 APHC010247622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 12462/2025 Between: Meduri Vijay Kumar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: RRR,J & TCDS,J WP_12462_2025 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAO RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.12462 OF 2025 ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar) 1. The present writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus by directing the 4th respondent to produce Meduri Vinay Kumar/detenue who is detained in the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam before this Court and to declare detention order in C.No.5803/MC-III/PD Act/2024, dated 07.03.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.699 General Administration (Law & Order) Department, dated 11.04.2025 as illegal, and unconstitutional and sought for set aside the same and set the detenue at liberty. 2. The petitioner is the brother of Sri Meduri Vinay Kumar. It is the case of the petitioner that by order dated 07.03.2025 vide C.No.5803/MC-III/PD Act/2024, the 2nd respondent passed order of detention (Act 1 of 1986) the detenue was detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam on the ground that he is a Goonda and Drug Offender within the meaning of Section 2(g) and 2(f) of the A.P. Prevention of Bottleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 and that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and to prevent him from RRR,J & TCDS,J WP_12462_2025 3 further indulging such type of activities. The said order was detention was reviewed by the Advisory Board on 28.03.2025 and it was opined that there is no sufficient cause detention of the detenue. Accordingly, the government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 12 (1) r/w. 13 of the Act, the 1st respondent confirmed the order of detention passed against the detenue vide G.O.Rt.No.699, dated 11.04.2025 for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention i.e., 09.03.2025, treating the detenue as “Drug Offender” as defined as Section 2 (f) of the A.P. Prevention of Bottleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. 3. The 2nd respondent while passing of the order of detention has taken into consideration five (05) cases, which were registered against the detenue. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in all the five cases registered against the detenue, he was granted bail. The S.No. Crime No. Provision of Law Date of offence Police Station 1. Crime No.672/2013 U/s. 354 (A) & (D), 506 IPC. 17.12.2013 Gajuwaka 2. Crime No.998/2022 U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(C), 22 (B) of NDPS Act. 13.10.2022 Gajuwaka 3. Crime No.321 of 2023 U/s.324 r/w. 34 IPC. 29.06.2023 Gajuwaka 4. Crime No.323 of 2023 U/s.20(b)(ii)(C) r/w.22(c), 25 of NDPS Act. 30.06.2023 Gajuwaka 5. Crime No.282 of 2024 U/s.20(b)(ii)(C) r/w.8(C) 25 of NDPS Act. 17.05.2024 Gajuwaka RRR,J & TCDS,J WP_12462_2025 4 detaining authority did not take into consideration the said fact while arriving at the subjective satisfaction before passing the detention order. It is further case of the petitioner that the copies of bail orders were also not placed before the detaining authority and the failure on the part of the sponsoring authority in placing the vital information relating to the detenue i.e., bail orders vitiates the order of preventive detention, so as to enable the petitioner to submit effective representation before the Advisory Board. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the detention was informed about his right to make representation against the order of detention to the detaining authority or to the Chief Secretary to the Government or to the Advisory Board. Despite the detenue being informed about the said right, he did not choose to file any such representation. It is further contended that for the first time the detenue has raised the ground alleging that the bail orders were not furnished to him which would have enabled him to make an effective representation. It is further contended that, while passing the order of detention, the detaining authority has merely referred to the said orders in the narration of events and has not relied upon them. It is further contended that failure to supply bail orders will not cause any prejudiced the detenue in making an effective representation. RRR,J & TCDS,J WP_12462_2025 5 6. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, representing the learned Additional Advocate General. 7. Perused material available on record. 8. The primary contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the detenue was released on bail as on the date of detention order and copies of bail orders have not been placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority, would vitiates the order of detention inasmuch as the detention order was passed without subjective satisfaction. The counsel for petitioner relied on the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of “Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. State of Maharashtra and others”1, it was held at paragraph No.9 as under: “in a case where the detenue is released on bail and he is enjoying his freedom under the order of the Court at the time of passing the order of detention, then such order of bail, in our opinion must be placed before the detaining authority to enable him to reach at the proper satisfaction.” 9. The counsel for the petitioner also relies on the Judgment rendered by the High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of “Vasanthu Sumalatha 1 (2012) 2 SCC 72 RRR,J & TCDS,J WP_12462_2025 6 and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh”2, it was held at paragraph No.96 as under: “To enable the detenue to exercise his right to make an effective representation against his detention, it is imperative that all relevant material, including copies of the bail orders, are furnished to him. The contention that the detenue was aware of the bail order, even if accepted as true, would not justify failure of the detaining authority to furnish these copies to the detenue when he has no access to these documents when he is in preventive custody. Failure to furnish copies of the orders granting bail to the detenue vitiates the order of detention. 10. In the case on hand though it is stated by the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit that the detaining authority has merely referred to the narration of events, did not rely upon them while passing the detention order and failure to supply the copies of bail orders will not cause any prejudice to the detenue in making effective representation. The said contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be accepted in view of the Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred to above. Failure to providing copies of the bail orders to the detenue would deprive his right to make an effective representation to the Advisory Board. Further, on a perusal of order of the detention, it is clear that neither the copies of bail orders were placed before the detaining authority nor the same were furnished to the detenue. In the 2 (2016) 1 ALT 738(DB) RRR,J & TCDS,J WP_12462_2025 7 absence of the same, the rights of the detenue guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India would be at jeopardy inasmuch as he would not be in a position to make an effective representation. 11. In view of the above reasons and by following the Judgments referred to herein above, the order of detention dated 07.03.2025 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and order of detention dated 07.03.2025 in C.No.5803/MC- III/PD Act/2024 passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.699 General Administration (Law & Order) Department, dated 11.04.2025 issued by the 1st respondent are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed that the detenue, Meduri Vinay Kumar shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAO RAGHUNANDAN RAO JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 17.10.2025 DR RRR,J & TCDS,J WP_12462_2025 8 02 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.12462 OF 2025 Date 17.10.2025 DR