PUNNATI SATYAVATHI Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in R.C.No.50/2023/C1 dtd. 30/6/2023, as confirmed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.1323, dtd. 10/7/2023 and G.O.Rt.No.1787, dtd. 7/9/2023, detaining the detenue, Smt. Valluri Roja, W/o. (Late) Ravi Kumar, as illegal and unconstitutional.

(2.) The petitioner is the sister of the detenue, and she contends that the 3rd respondent vide R.C.No.50/2023/C1 dtd. 30/6/2023, passed an order of detention under the provisions of Sec 3(1) and 3(2) r/w Sec 2(f) of A.P Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offender Goondas Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short "Act 1 of 1986") for indulging in activities in contravention of the NDPS ct 1985. It is stated that the detenue was granted bail in all the cases, by the date of detention. The following are the cases that were taken into consideration while passing the order of the detention:

(3.) The petitioner contends that a case which was registered in the year 2017, was also taken into consideration while passing the order of detention and contends that the same lacks proximity between the first offence to the date of detention, and between the remaining offences. In the absence of live link between the offences and in the absence of satisfaction being recorded to the effect that the detenue has been regularly indulging herself in commission of such offences, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. The petitioner further contends that out of four (4) cases, the detenue was granted bails in majority of the cases and contends that the sponsoring authority did not place the said bail orders before the detaining authority and as on the date of passing of the detention order the detenue was in judicial custody. The petitioner further contends that in the absence of the satisfaction being recorded, the detention order would not be sustainable. It is further contended by the petitioner that the order of the detention was passed in a mechanical manner on vague, irrelevant and nonexistent grounds. It is further submitted that the detenue is tested HIV positive and sought for release by setting-aside the order of detention.