T. SOUNDARYA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner prays for release of her husband Torlapati Naresh, S/o T. Surya Rao R/o Maddurulanka Village, Kovvuru Mandal, West Godavari District who was detained and lodged in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram as per the detention order vide proceedings in ROC No.C1/e-1882646/2022, dtd. 26/3/2022, of the 2nd respondent under Sec. 3(2) r/w 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986) [for short, 'the Act 1 of 1986'] and consequential confirmation order of the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.914, dtd. 18/5/2022.

(2.) The 2nd respondent has passed the detention order dtd. 26/3/2022 on the ground that the detenue was involved in following nine cases and thus he is a 'Bootlegger' within the meaning of Sec. 2(b) of the Act 1 of 1986 and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order.

(3.) The detention order is challenged in this writ petition on the main grounds that the detenue is an innocent person and not committed any of the offences mentioned in the detention order; the cases in which he is involved can be effectively dealt with under the general law and his activities are not prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order; the copies of the order of detention as well as grounds of detention and other materials relied upon by the respondent authorities were not supplied to the detenue in time; in all the nine crimes, which were taken as a ground for issuing detention order, the detenue was granted bail even before the date of detention order and the said fact was not taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority while passing the detention order; the confirmation order was not served on the detenue and it was furnished to him only in the Court during the course of hearing in the writ petition; the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind in issuing the detention order, inasmuch as, of the nine crimes which were taken as a ground to pass detention order, except in one or two crimes, in other crimes the detenue was not physically present at the time of alleged offence but he was falsely implicated on the basis of alleged confession of co-accused. Thus the detention order per se is illegal and without application of the mind.