MOHAMMAD ARIF Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Habeas Corpus by declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, in detaining Shaik Khaja @ Kaalu, S/o. Shaik Mohammad Rafi, vide order dated 2 25/8/2023 in RC. No.MC1/2446/2023, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.2115 General Administration (SPL. (LAW AND ORDER)), Department, dtd. 30/10/2023, as illegal and unconstitutional.

(2.) The writ petitioner is brother of the detenue, Sri Shaik Khaja @ Kaalu, S/o. Shaik Mohammad Rafi. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dtd. 25/8/2023, passed an order of detention under Sec 3(1) & (2) read with Sec.2(f) 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, Kadapa. The said order of detention was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.2115 dtd. 30/10/2023, treating the detenue as 'Goonda' as defined under Sec.2(g) 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, which have been taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent, while placing the detenue under detention:

(3.) The petitioner contends that out of ten (10) cases registered against him, in eight (8) cases, the detenue was issued with notice under Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C. In one (1) case, the detenue was yet to be arrested. The detaining authority did not take into consideration the said fact while arriving at the satisfaction. Out of the said ten (10) cases, four (4) cases were ended in compromise before Lok Adalat. The Awards passed by the Lok Adalat in the said cases were also not furnished to the detenue enabling him to submit his representation. He further contends that the detaining authority while passing the order of detention has taken into consideration certain stale cases, which lacks live link with the remaining 4 crimes which were registered against the detenue, before passing of the present impugned order of detention. It is his further submission that one of the offence alleged to have been committed would not fall under the definition of 'Goonda' as defined U/s. Sec.2(g) of the A.P Prevention of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act,1986.