APHC010490762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 25077/2025 Between: 1. BOMMALI ASHAJYOTHI, W/O B, VAMSI KRISHNA, AGED 26 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O RAMAPURAM COLONY, GEETHA MANDIRAM, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (LAW ORDER) DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, A.P. POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM DISTRICT. 4. HE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MAGISTRATE, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM DISTRICT. 6. 6. THE DISTRICT PROHIBITION EXCISE OFFICER, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. 7. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PROHIBITION EXCISE STATION, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM 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 pleased topleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the action of the respondents in detaining Sri. Bommali Vamsi Krishna, S/o late Venkata Papa Rao, Aged 30 years, R/o Pedharelliveedhi, Parvathipuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam through vide Rc.No.2219/2025/C3, dt.21.08.2025 passed by the respondent no. 5 and referred to respondent no. 1 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently a) Set aside the proceedings issued in vide 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.25077 of 2025 Rc.No.2219/2025/C3, dt.21.08.2025 by the respondent no. 5 and referred to respondent no. 1 and b) direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Honble Court from Central Prison, Visakhapatnam and he may be ordered to be released forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the proceedings vide Rc.No.2219/2025/C3, dt.21.08.2025 issued by the respondent no. 5 and release the Sri. Bommali Vamsi Krishna/detenue from the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity. IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the main prayer and interim prayer in W.P.No. 25077 of 2025 as “it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the action of the respondents in detaining Sri. Bommali Vamsi Krishna, S/o late Venkata Papa Rao, Aged 30 years, R/o Pedharelliveedhi, Parvathipuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam through vide Rc.No.2219/2025/C3, dt.21.08.2025 passed by the respondent no. 5 which was approved by the P„ respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 1924 General Administration (SC.I) Department dt. 17.10.2025 is illegal, arbitraiy and unconstitutional and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently a) Set aside the proceedings issued vide Rc.No.2219/2025/C3, dt.21.08.2025 passed by the respondent no. 5 which was approved by the F' respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 1924 General Administration (SC.I) Department dt. 17.10.2025 and b) direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Hon‟ble Court from Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram and he may be ordered to be released forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.” and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.25077 of 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Challenging the legal validity of the order of preventive detention dated 21.08.2025 passed by the 5th respondent-District Collector and Magistrate, Parvathipuram, ordering for preventive detention of the detenu by name B.Vamsi Krishna, who is the husband of the writ petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed seeking direction for his release. 2. Heard Mr.B.Rama Shankar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Keerthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Special Government attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the official respondents. 3. Four crimes were registered against a person by name B.Vamsi Krishna (hereinafter referred to as „detenu‟) for the offences punishable under Sections 7(B) read with 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 2020, in various police stations. The allegations made against the detenu in the said crimes i.e., (i) Crime No.157 of 2025, (ii) Crime No.136 of 2025, (iii) Crime No.116 of 2025 and (iv) Crime No.36 of 2023 are that he has indulged in illicit manufacturing of liquor and possession of the same and selling the same. Therefore, as the detenu is found to be indulging in committing the said offences repeatedly, the 6th respondent-District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Parvathipuram, was of the view that his acts are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and that an order of preventive detention is required to be passed against him. The detenu was also released on bail in all the aforesaid four crimes. Therefore, the 6th respondent-sponsoring authority has placed the entire material relating to registration of the aforesaid crimes against the detenu, along with the orders of bail granted in favour of the detenu before the 5th respondent- detaining authority, for the purpose of passing an order of preventive detention. The 5th respondent has considered the said material including the copies of the orders of bail produced before him and he was of the view that the detenu comes within the definition of „bootlegger‟ as defined under Section 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.25077 of 2025 2(b) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offences, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offences and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, and that an order of preventive detention is required to be passed against him to prevent him from committing the said offences again in the larger interest of the public, as his acts in committing the said crimes are found to be prejudicial to the public order. Therefore, by the impugned order dated 21.08.2025, the 5th respondent passed an order of preventive detention against him. The said order of preventive detention was considered by the State and it was ratified and confirmed by G.O.Rt.No.1924, dated 17.10.2025. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of preventive detention passed against the detenu, the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, challenges the legal validity of the said order. The ground of challenge made to the impugned order is mainly that the orders of bail that are granted to the detenu are not produced before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority to enable him to consider the same and to apply his mind to decide whether to pass any order of preventive detention against the detenu or not. It is the only ground on which the petitioner sought to challenge the impugned order of preventive detention. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the detenu was enlarged on bail long prior to the date of passing the order of preventive detention that the copies of the said bail orders are not placed before the detaining authority to consider the same in compliance with the legal requirement and failure to place the said orders of bail before the detaining authority vitiates the impugned order of preventive detention. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the impugned order of preventive detention on the said ground. 6. In addition to it, learned counsel further submits that the wife of the detenu is a pregnant at present and that on account of order of preventive detention that is passed against him contrary to the law that he is deprived of 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.25077 of 2025 his personal liberty what is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, he prayed to order for release of the detenu forthwith. 7. Per Contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that the copies of the orders granting bail to the detenu are in fact placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority and he has considered the same and thereafter he has passed the impugned order of preventive detention and the same is borne out from the record. He has invited our attention to the proposal made by the sponsoring authority i.e., the 6th respondent to the 5th respondent- District Collector, wherein, in the table provided in the said proposal, it is clearly indicated in the third column that the detenu was released on bail in all the said crimes. He has also further invited our attention to the copies of the bail orders that are produced before the detaining authority. It is evident from the material that is placed that the copies of the orders of bail granted to the detenu are placed before the detaining authority to consider the same. After considering the said material, the detaining authority has passed the impugned order of preventive detention. He has clearly stated in the impugned order that even after he was released on bail, he has been repeatedly committing the same type of offences knowing fully well that illegal possession, transportation and sale of I.D. liquor are punishable under the Prohibition and Excise laws. Therefore, it cannot be said that the copies of the orders of bail are not produced before the detaining authority to enable him to consider the same and to decide whether to pass an order of preventive detention or not or that the order was vitiated on account of non-production of copies of the orders of bail before him. 8. The material on record further shows that the samples of the liquor seized from him were sent to the chemical expert for his analysis and after examining the same that he has submitted his report stating that the said illicit liquor is unfit for human consumption and injurious to public health and 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.25077 of 2025 that in extreme cases, it may also lead to death. Therefore, when the detenu is indulging in committing the said crimes repeatedly and as the liquor that is being transported and which is in illegal possession of the detenu is found to be unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and in extreme cases even it may lead to death, certainly his acts are found to be prejudicial to maintenance of public order. Therefore, the impugned order is perfectly sustainable under law and it is not liable to be set aside. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.15808 of 2025 is not applicable to the present facts of the case. 9. We do not find any valid legal ground which invalidates the order of the preventive detention. 10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed, confirming the order of preventive detention. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 05-02-2026 BMS