APHC010317092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO: 15825/2025 Between: 1. RAYIPALLI GOWRISWARI,, W/O. RAYIPALLI VINOD, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. MAIN STREET, GUMADA, KOMARADA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 1. HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CE VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the constitution of India directing the 4th respondent to produce Rayipalli Vinod S/o Krishna who is now detained in Central P this Honble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 15825/2025 RAYIPALLI GOWRISWARI,, W/O. RAYIPALLI VINOD, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. MAIN STREET, GUMADA, KOMARADA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the constitution of India directing the 4th respondent to produce Rayipalli Vinod S/o Krishna who is now detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam before this Honble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3558] THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA RAYIPALLI GOWRISWARI,, W/O. RAYIPALLI VINOD, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. MAIN STREET, GUMADA, KOMARADA, ...PETITIONER HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PARVATHIPURAM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM NTRAL PRISON, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the constitution of India directing the 4th respondent to produce Rayipalli Vinod rison, Visakhapatnam before this Honble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15825 of 2025 declaring his detention vide proceedings RC.NO.68/2025/A1, dt. 18.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 1212, dt.20.06.2025 General Administration (Law and Order) Dept., as illegal and unconstitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15825 of 2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) The writ petitioner assails the order of preventive detention dated 18.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2-Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Parvathipuram Manyam District, against the husband of the writ petitioner by name Rayipalli Vinod (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’), which in-turn was confirmed by respondent No.1-State vide G.O.Rt.No.1212 GAD (SC.I) Department, dated 20.06.2025 and sought declaration that the impugned orders of detention are illegal and unconstitutional. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents Nos.1 to 4. 3. The writ petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Rayipalli Vinod. About eleven crimes were registered against the detenu in various police stations in Parvathipuram Manyam District, for the offences punishable under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and also under the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020. The substance of the allegation against him in all the said eleven crimes registered against him is that he has been indulging in manufacture of illicit distilled liquor and has been in possession of the same and has been also indulging in sale of the same repeatedly. He was enlarged on bail in nine crimes registered against him and in two crimes, notice under Section 41(A) of Code of Criminal Procedure was 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15825 of 2025 given to him and thereafter, he was let off. As he has been obtaining bails immediately within a short period of time after his arrest, within a period of seven (7) days from date of his arrest and as he has been misusing the liberty granted to him by way of granting bails and repeatedly indulging in commission of the said crimes, respondent No.2-Collector and District Magistrate was of the opinion that his acts in resorting to commission of the said acts are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and it is affecting the public health. Therefore, he has considered him to be a Bootlegger as defined under Section 2(g) of Andhra 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 to prevent him from commission of any such crimes further and in the larger interest of public health and in the interest of maintenance of public order, respondent No.2 in exercise of his powers conferred on him under Section 3(1)(2) of the Act, by the impugned order dated 18.05.2025 passed an order of preventive detention against him. In compliance with the procedure contemplated under law, respondent No.1-State has in-turn confirmed the said order of preventive detention passed against the detenu as per G.O.Rt.No.1212 GAD (SC.I) Department, dated 20.06.2025. Therefore, the detenu has been in preventive detention from 19.05.2025 onwards. 4. The writ petitioner, who is his wife, sought to assail the impugned order of preventive detention on the sole ground that when admittedly the detenu was enlarged on bail in nine crimes that were registered against him even 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15825 of 2025 before passing the order of preventive detention, the said bail orders are to be necessarily placed before him for the purpose of applying his mind to pass the order of preventive detention and the said orders are not placed before him as required under law and failure to place the said orders of detention before him vitiates the order of preventive detention. Therefore, the writ petitioner prayed to set-aside the impugned order of preventive detention which in-turn was confirmed by the State and to order for release of the detenu and set him at liberty. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated the above contention and while placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra and others 1 vehemently contended that failure to place the orders of bail before the detaining authority makes the order of detention invalid. 6. In oppugnation, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State contends that the detaining authority got knowledge of the fact that the detenu was released on bail and he was aware of the said fact at the time of passing the order of preventive detention and the same is evident from the impugned order of preventive detention. He has invited our attention to the order of preventive detention passed by respondent No.2, wherein, it is stated that respondent No.2/detaining authority has observed the connected records pertaining to the cases registered against the detenu clearly show that he was obtaining bail within one (1) week period by taking advantage of provisions of 1(2012) 2 SCC 72 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15825 of 2025 the Act and the department is unable to prevent him from indulging in dangerous activities which are adversely affecting the public health and he contends that when the detaining authority is aware of the fact that the detenu has been obtaining bail on the basis of the records placed by him, the failure to place the bail orders before him will have no adverse effect on the impugned order of preventive detention and it will not render the order of preventive detention invalid. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and others2. 7. We have meticulously considered the aforesaid rival contentions made by both the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and we have also carefully perused the judgments cited by them, which are referred to supra. 8. As noticed supra, the impugned order of preventive detention was assailed on the sole ground that the bail orders which are passed in favour of the detenu, granting bails in nine crimes out of the eleven crimes registered against him are not placed before the detaining authority i.e., respondent No.2 at the time of passing the impugned order of preventive detention even though he was enlarged on bail prior to passing the said order of detention. Admittedly, the detenu was enlarged on bail in nine crimes before passing the impugned order of preventive detention. The said material fact is not disputed before the Court. Similarly, it is an admitted fact that the said orders of bail in 2(1992) 1 SCC 1 7 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15825 of 2025 the said nine crimes are not placed before respondent No.2 at the time of passing the impugned order of preventive detention. Now, the point for determination is whether it is sufficient if the detaining authority got knowledge of the fact that the detenu was enlarged on bail at the time of passing the order of preventive detention or whether it is essential to place the said bail orders before him to consider the same before passing the order of detention. The legal position in this regard is not res integra and the same has been well settled. In the judgment that was relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Rushikesh’s case (cited supra 1), at para Nos.8 and 9 it is held as follows: “8. It would be, thus, seen that the order releasing the detenu on bail in the crime registered on 14-8-2010 and the order relaxing the bail condition were passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharangaon much before the issuance of the detention order dated 10-1-2011. However, the detention order or the grounds supplied to the detenu do not show that the detaining authority was aware of the bail order granted in favour of the detenu on 15-8-2010. 9. In a case where the detenu is released on bail and 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. It is clear from the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in para No.9 of the judgment that when the detenu was 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 must be placed before the detaining 8 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15825 of 2025 authority to enable him to reach at the proper satisfaction. Since it is held that it must be placed before the detaining authority, it is to be taken as mandatory requirement. In para No.10, the Court clearly held that failure to place any such bail order before the detaining authority renders the order of detention invalid. 10. In fact, there are long line of judgments on this aspect where this Court has taken a consistent view that it is essential to place the bail orders before the detaining authority at the time of passing the order of preventive detention when the detenu was already enlarged on bail prior for passing the order of detention. Needless to cite all those authorities in view of the clear ratio laid down by the Apex Court to that effect long back in the year 2012 itself in the above Rushikesh’s case. 11. Learned Government Pleader Mr. Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, made his best effort to convince the Court that it is not mandatory to produce the orders of bail in all cases before the detaining authority and suffice it to satisfy the Court that the detaining authority got knowledge of passing the orders of bail against the detenu. But, he is not fortified with any judicial pronouncement on this aspect and the contention raised by him. 12. After considering the settled law in this regard as discussed supra, we are of the considered view that mere knowledge of the detaining authority relating to grant of bail to the detenu before passing the impugned order of detention by itself is not sufficient and the bail orders are to be necessarily 9 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15825 of 2025 placed before him to consider the same to apply his mind to reach at the proper satisfaction as held by the Apex Court in Rushikesh’s case. Although, the learned Government Pleader has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Abdul Sathar’s case, wherein, the Apex Court has culled out about six principles while reaching to conclusion in that case at para No.12, after elaborately discussing the earlier case law rendered on this point and relied on principle No.3, wherein, it is held that ‘if the detenu has moved for bail then the application and order thereon refusing bail even if not placed before the detaining authority it does not amount to suppression of relevant material and the question of non-application of mind and satisfaction being impaired does not arise as long as the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in actual custody’. We are of the considered view that the said proposition of law is not applicable to the present facts of the case, in fact, the 6th principle in the said judgment is applicable to the present facts of the case. It reads thus: “In a case where detenu is released on bail and is at liberty at the time of passing the order of detention, then the detaining authority has to necessarily rely upon them as that would be a vital ground for ordering detention. In such a case the bail application and the order granting bail should necessarily be placed before the authority and the copies should also be supplied to the detenu.” 13. Therefore, even in the judgment relied on by the learned Government Pleader also the law is clearly laid down stating that when the detenu was released on bail the said order of bail has to be necessarily placed before the 10 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.15825 of 2025 detaining authority to enable him to arrive at the satisfaction for passing the order of detention. 14. Therefore, in view of the settled law, as the orders of bail and also the bail application are not placed before the detaining authority i.e., respondent No.2 at the time of passing the order of detention, the impugned order of preventive detention dated 18.05.2025 and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.1212 GAD (SC.I) Department, dated 20.06.2025 are clearly unsustainable under law and they liable to be set-aside. 15. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention, passed by respondent No.2 dated 18.05.2025, against the detenu, who is the husband of the petitioner by name Rayipalli Vinod and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.1212, GAD (SC.I), Department, dated 20.06.2025 that was passed confirming the said order. The detenu by name Rayipalli Vinod shall be forthwith released and set at liberty, if not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 04.11.2025 MDP