BEJAWADA MAHALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF ANDRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Habeas Corpus by declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, in detaining Bejawada Raveendra vide order dtd. 8/11/2023 in ROC. No.M1(DVRP SEB)/476167/2023, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.30 General Administration (SPL. (LAW AND ORDER)), Department, dtd. 8/1/2024, as illegal and unconstitutional.

(2.) The writ petitioner is wife of the detenue, Bezwada Raveendra. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dtd. 8/11/2023, passed an order of detention under Sec. 3(1) & (2) read with Sec.2(b) of the A.P Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act,1986, (Act No.1 of 1986), placing the detenue under detention in Central Prison, Rajahmahendravaram. The said order of detention was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.30 dtd. 8/1/2024, treating the detenue as Boot Legger" as defined under Sec.2(b) of the A.P Prevention of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act,1986. The following are the cases, that have been taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent, while placing the detenue under detention:

(3.) The petitioner contends seven (7) cases were registered against the detenue under the provisions of Sec. 7 (B) R/w 8 (A), 8 (B) and 8 (C) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. In 6 cases, it is stated that he was granted bail and that while he was in judicial custody in Cr.No.210 of 202 3, the 7th case, the order of detention was passed on 8/11/2023. It is represented that regular bail was granted in five (5) cases and in one case, the detenue was issued with notice under Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C. It is the contention of the petitioner that the detaining authority did not take into consideration the factum of judicial custody of the detenue as on the date of passing of the detention order, and a mere ipsi dixit statement that the detenue would get bail and upon such release, he would continue to indulge in similar offences would not amount to, recording of subjective satisfaction. She relies on the decisions of this Court in W.P.No.1803 of 2021 and W.P.No.25524 of 2023. The petitioner further contends that there is no proximity between the crimes registered, in as much as, there was a gap of 15 months between the 1st offence in Cr. No. 167 of 2020 and the 2nd offence in Cr. No. 292 of 2021. The petitioner therefore contends that the lack of proximity between the offences, and the stale cases which have been taken into consideration, while passing the order of detention, would render the order of detention invalid.