CHINTHAM HARINADHA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed by one Chintham Harinadha Reddy, S/o. Nagireddy, resident of Alimabad Street, Rayachoty Town, YSR Kadapa District, who is the father of the detenu (Chintham Balaji Reddy), questioning the detention order dated 9.3.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Legers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act") issued in G.O. Rt. No. 5658, General Administration (Law and Order-II) Department dated 12.12.2012 and the same was ratified in G.O. Rt. No. 1828 GA (Law and Order-II) Department, dated 24.4.2013 by the first respondent. Under the impugned order the son of the petitioner i.e., Chintham Balaji Reddy (for short, "the detenu") was directed to be detained in Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District until further orders in order to prevent the detenu from indulging in clandestine, clandestine and illegal activities prejudicial to the maintenance to the public order. This order was further ratified by the 1st respondent by G.O. Rt. No. 1828 dated 24.4.2013 in exercise of the powers conferred on the 1st respondent under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act, specifying the detention period as 12 months from the date of the detention i.e., 13.3.2013. In the impugned detention order, it has been stated that the detenu who is aged about 35 years is a dreaded notorious red sanders wood smuggler and was involved in 7 different cases relating to Forest Department and he had been evading or concealed his presence and involved in red sanders wood smuggling clandestinely. (2) Penal laws have failed to curb his illegal activities, he has obtained bails in 3 different cases and trying to obtain bails in 4 cases, where trials are pending out of 7 cases registered against him. If the detenu comes out from the prison on bail, he will definitely indulge in prejudicial activity which is required by the preventive detention order. (3) Prevention detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence, while the criminal proceedings are to punish a person for an offence committed by him. It is further stated that the detenu is indulging in creating terror amongst the people along with his henchmen creating law and order problem and he is involved in looting the national wealth i.e., the red sanders which is an endemic timber and listed as endangered species in Red Data book of IUCN. Hence, he is a goonda and unless he is detained under the Act he cannot be prevented from further indulging in illegal activities mentioned above and cannot be controlled. In the grounds of detention which were supplied to the detenu had mentioned the offences in which he alleged to have been involved directly or indirectly are mentioned in detail.

(2.) First of the offence which is mentioned as OR No. 61 of 2011 dated 27.9.2011. The offence was detected on 27.9.2011 in which the detenu was arrayed as A2. Though the crime was registered on 27.9.2011, he was arrested only on 21.10.2011 on his voluntary surrender before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Yellarapalli. Before his surrender on 21.10.2011 he was again alleged to have involved in Crime No. 64 of 2011 dated 1.9.2011 of Lakkireddipalli Police Station and in this case the detenu was arrayed as A. 10. In this offence also he surrendered before the Court on 21.10.2011. In both cases he was granted bail on 1.11.2011 and 2.11.2011. The 3rd case is OR No. 52 of 2012-13, the date of offence is 6.10.2012. Again he had surrendered before the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class on 7.12.2012 and bail was granted on 11.12.2012. In other words in a matter of 4 days he was released on a bail. In earlier occasion, he was granted bail in about 10 days. Offence in OR No. 147 of 2012-13 of Rayachoty range was alleged to have been committed on 30.1.2013 under which the detenu was shown as A8. In OR No. 157 of 2012-13 was an offence alleged to have been committed on 14.2.2013 and the detenu was shown as A27. In OR 200 of 2012-13 was an offence alleged to have been committed on 15.2.2013 whereunder the detenu was shown as A5. Yet again OR No. 225 of 2012-13, was an offence alleged to have been committed on 28.2.2013 whereunder the detenu was shown as A1. In OR No. 225 of 2012-13, he was arrested on 20.2.2013 and produced before the Magistrate and the Magistrate remanded the detenu to judicial custody initially till 14.3.2013. A bail petition was moved in OR No. 225 of 2012-13 on 4.3.2013 and the same came to be dismissed on 7.3.2013. In crime OR Nos. 147, 157 and 200 of 2012-13, the detenu was produced before the Court through P.T. warrants. A close scrutiny of the cases in which the detenu was alleged to have been involved is considered in the first 2 cases, detenu was granted bail in a short period of 10 days and in the 3rd case in a short period of 4 days. After granting of the bail on 11.12.2012, there were 4 cases whereunder the detenu was alleged to have been involved. In other words notwithstanding the fact the detenu was detained in a case and even after his release he had not chosen to conduct himself as a law abiding citizen without his getting involved in a crime and getting implicated. The freedom which has been given under the bail order is alleged to have been misused. It may not be out of place to mention that in the first 3 cases, the detenu surrendered himself before the Courts. In other words, the detenu repeatedly alleged to have been indulging in offences falling under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXVII of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In the light of the above factual background, the learned Counsel Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, appearing on behalf of the detenu would urge before us that the order of the detention is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and violative of the detenu's rights guaranteed under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in particular raises the following grounds: