* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI WRIT PETITION NO: 12805 OF 2026 % 06.08.2026 # Vasamsetti Swamy Ayyappa ……petitioner And: $ The State of Andhra Pradesh & 4 others …. respondents !Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Duggiralal Subash ^Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Sri J. Krishna Praneeth <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. HCP No.91/2025, decided on 17.07.2026 2. Civil Appeal No.9109 of 2019, decided on 29.11.2019 3. MANU/SCOR/24000/2025 4. 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 6003 2 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * * * * WRIT PETITION NO: 12805 OF 2026 Between: Vasamsetti Swamy Ayyappa ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh & 4 others ....RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 06.08.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J APHC010246182026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 12805 OF 2026 Between: 1. Vasamsetti Swamy Ayyappa wage earner, R/o. D.No. 20 Rajamahendravaram Rural, East Godavari District, Andhra pradesh 1. The State Of AP, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati at Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati at Velagapudi Guntur District 3. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram East Godavari District 5. The Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI WRIT PETITION NO: 12805 OF 2026 Vasamsetti Swamy Ayyappa, S/o. Annavaram, aged 51 years Occ /o. D.No. 20-211, Yerrakonda, Netajinagar, Dowleswarahi, Rajamahendravaram Rural, East Godavari District, Andhra pradesh ...Petitioner AND AP, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati at Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati at Velagapudi Guntur 3. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram East Godavari 5. The Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District ...Respondents IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR years Occ Daily 211, Yerrakonda, Netajinagar, Dowleswarahi, Rajamahendravaram Rural, East Godavari District, Andhra pradesh - 53312 ...Petitioner AP, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati at Velagapudi Guntur 3. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram East Godavari 5. The Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram Police Station, ...Respondents 4 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 to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing to produce Vasamsetti Durga Sai Praveen @ Babloo, who is now detained in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram , East Godavari District before this Honble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide Detention orders in G.O.Rt.No.1675 dated 31.12.2025 passed by second respondent and confirmation of detention by the Advisory board as illegal and unconstitutional and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: DUGGIRALA SUBASH Counsel for the Respondents: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following order: 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI WRIT PETITION NO: 12805 OF 2026 ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J) Heard Sri Duggiralal Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Keerthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. Challenging the order of preventive detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in short, ‘PIT NDPS Act, 1988’), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The said order was passed vide G.O.Rt.No.1675 dated 31.12.2025 by the Principal Secretary to Government and the same was confirmed vide G.O.Rt.No.269 dated 16.02.2026. 3. The order of preventive detention was passed on two grounds, i.e., two crime cases: S. No. Cr. No, Sec of law & Name of the Police Station Ganja Seized Stage of the Case 1. Cr.No.153/2023 U/s 8(c) 20 (b) (ii) (C) NDPS Act of II Town P.S, Rajamahendravaram. 21 Kg Under Investigat ion 2. Cr.No.218/2024 U/s 8 (c) 20 (b) (ii) (B) NDPS Act of Dowlaiswaram P.S. 2.060 Kg Pending Trial 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of preventive detention could not be passed taking into consideration Crime No.153 of 2023 6 under section i.e the 1st Ground, as at the relevant point of time, the detenu was a juvenile. He referred to Section 3(xiv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and has placed reliance on Zahid Ahmad Mir v. UT of J&K and Others, HCP No.91/2025, decided on 17.07.2026 and Union of India and Others v. Ramesh Bishnoi, Civil Appeal No.9109 of 2019, decided on 29.11.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenue was granted bail in both the criminal case Nos.153 of 2023 and 218 of 2024 under Grounds 1 & 2. But the bail orders have not been considered. 6. On the first submission, the learned Government Pleader could not dispute the legal position as in Ramesh Bishnoi (supra) and Zahid Ahmad Mir (supra). Any decision to the contrary could not be placed before us. 7. Learned Government Pleader submits, on the second submission that, from perusal of the order of preventive detention, it is not evident that the bail orders were considered. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced before us and perused the material on record. 9. So far as the first submission is concerned, i.e. order of preventive detention basing on the offence under the criminal case Nos.153 of 2023 is the ground No.1, it is not in dispute that the detenu was a juvenile at the relevant point of time of the offence under the said ground. 7 10. Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down the guidelines for the Central Government, State Governments, the Board and other agencies while implementing the provisions of the Act 2015. Clause (xiv) of Section 3, clearly provides that all past records of any child under Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in special circumstances. Section 3(xiv) reads as follows: “3. General principles to be followed in administration of Act.- The Central Government, the State Governments, 1[the Board, the Committee, or] other agencies, as the case may be, while implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by the following fundamental principles, namely: …………….. (xiv) Principle of fresh start: All past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in special circumstances. ………………” 11. Section 3(xiv) clearly provides that all past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in special circumstances. The past record of the juvenile (detenue) is not required to be considered in future, except in special circumstances. 12. The order of preventive detention does not state the ‘special circumstances’ for relying upon the criminal case in which the detenue was allegedly involved when he was a juvenile. In the absence of any special circumstance, the crime in ground No.1 could not be taken into account for 8 passing the preventive detention order. The detaining authority has therefore taken an irrelevant fact into consideration while passing the order of preventive detention. The order cannot be sustained on ground No.1. 13. In Ramesh Bishnoi (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held on Section 3(xiv) of the Juvenile Justice Act that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. The exception or the special circumstances were also not attracted. Para 9 of Ramesh Bishnoi (supra) reads as under: “9. From the facts, it is clear that at the time when the charges were framed against the respondent, on 30.06.2009, the respondent was well under the age of 18 years as his date of birth is 05.09.1991. Firstly, it was not disputed that the charges were never proved against the respondent as the girl and her parents did not depose against the respondent, resulting in his acquittal on 24.11.2011. Even if the allegations were found to be true, then too the respondent could not have been deprived of getting a job on the basis of such charges as the same had been committed while the respondent was juvenile. The thrust of the legislation, i.e. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the society as a normal person, without any stigma. Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down guidelines for the Central Government, State Governments, the Board and other agencies while implementing the provisions of the said Act. In clause (xiv) of Section 3, it is clearly provided as follows: 9 “………… (xiv) Principle of fresh start: All past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in special circumstances. ……………” In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent was a minor when the charges had been framed against him of offences under Sections 354, 447 and 509 of IPC. It is also not disputed that he was acquitted of the charges. However, even if he had been convicted, the same could not have been held against him for getting a job, as admittedly he was a minor when the alleged offences were committed and the charges had been framed against him. Section 3(xiv) provides for the same and the exception of special circumstances does not apply to the facts of the present case.” 14. Recently in Lokesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others1 in Criminal Appeal No(s)….. of 2025 (Arising from Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.851 of 2025) dated 18.02.2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 emphasis on a child-centric approach which is reinforced by Section 3(xiv) thereof, which encapsulates the “principle of fresh start”, making it clear that “all past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in special circumstances.” Para No.13 of Lokesh Kumar (supra) reads as under: “13. Furthermore, the JJ Act, 2015 emphasis on a child- centric approach is reinforced by Section 3(xiv) thereof, which encapsulates the "principle of fresh start," making it clear that "all past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in 1 MANU/SCOR/24000/2025 10 special circumstances." Here, the offence in question; mis-behaviour, verbal abuse, and physical assault under Sections 294, 506, and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, cannot be described as heinous. Nor is there any indication that the Appellant poses a continuing threat to public safety or security. Hence, continuing to reflect the Appellant's juvenile record in an official certificate directly conflicts with the rehabilitative policy that underpins the Act. This principle has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India v. Ramesh Bishnoi (2019) 19 SCC 710, in the following portion: "8. From the facts, it is clear that at the time when the charges were framed against the respondent, on 30-6-2009, the respondent was well under the age of 18 years as his date of birth is 5-9-1991. Firstly, it was not disputed that the charges were never proved against the respondent as the girl and her parents did not depose against the respondent, resulting in his acquittal on 24- 11-2011. Even if the allegations were found to be true, then too, the respondent could not have been deprived of getting a job on the basis of such charges as the same had been committed while the respondent was juvenile. The thrust of the legislation i.e. the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the society as a normal person, without any stigma. Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down guidelines for the Central Government, State Governments, the Board and other agencies while implementing the provisions of the said Act. In clause (xiv) of Section 3, it is clearly provided as follows: "3. (xiv) Principle of fresh start: All past records of any child under the juvenile justice system should be erased except in special circumstances."" 11 15. In Zahid Ahmad Mir v. UT of J&K and Others, HCP No.91/2025, decided on 17.07.2026, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held (in paragraph 8) as under: “8) Apart from the above, the detenue, admittedly, was juvenile at the time of his arrest in FIR No.97/2022 and his release on bail, which fact is substantiated by the communication dated 18.07.2022 forming Annexure-IV to the petition, addressed by the Headmaster, Govt. High School, Ahagam, Shopian, to SHO, P/S Keegam, wherein date of birth of the detenue is mentioned as '15.10.2006', meaning thereby he was less than 18 years of age at the time of his arrest in the aforesaid FIR. An illegal act committed by a juvenile does not stigmatize his future and likewise, an illegal act committed by a juvenile cannot form basis for issuance of a detention order subsequently, more particularly when the juvenile cannot be detained under the Public Safety Act. Therefore, the detenue could not have been detained under preventive laws for the activities alleged committed by him at the time when he was a juvenile. (Refer 'Tahir Riyaz Dar v. UT of J&K & Ors.' (LPA No.121/2025 decided on 06.11.2025). Thus, the impugned order of detention is not sustainable in law.” 16. In Marry Usha vs. State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Department of Home, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru and others2, the Karnataka High Court also held that where several of the offences which are relied on to justify the preventive detention were committed at a time when the detenue had not attained the age of 18 years and were not cases where he was tried as an adult for heinous offences, the very fact that those offences were taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the subjective satisfaction as to the 2 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 6003 12 detention of the detenue by itself would vitiate the Order of Detention and will go against the very purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act. Para 12 of Marry Usha (supra) reads as under: “12. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, where several of the offences which are relied on to justify the preventive detention were committed at a time when the detenue had not attained the age of 18 years and were not cases where he was tried as an adult for heinous offences, we are of the opinion, that the very fact that those offences were taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the subjective satisfaction as to the detention of the detenue by itself would vitiate the Order of Detention and will go against the very purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 24 thereof.” 17. In the absence of any special circumstances pointed out in the order of preventive detention, the crime in ground No.1 could not be relied upon as then the detenue was juvenile. 18. On the second submission, the detenue was granted bail in both the criminal cases under Ground Nos.1 and 2. There is no consideration of the bail orders and the conditions of bail in the order of preventive detention. This vitiates the order of preventive detention. 19. The impugned order of preventive detention and the confirmation order as unsustainable, and cannot be sustained on any of the grounds. 20. The writ petition is allowed. The order of preventive detention and the order of confirmation are set aside. 13 21. The detenue shall be set at liberty immediately, if he is not required in any other case. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J Dated: 06.08.2026 Note: LR copy be marked B/o. DSV