MANDA MARIYAMMA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Habeas Corpus by declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, in detaining Sri Manda David, S/o. Manda Adam, vide order dtd. 22/5/2023 in E Office No. 129/2023/C1, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No. 1448 General Administration (SC.I) Department, dtd. 24/7/2023, as illegal, unconstitutional and sought for set aside of the same and set the detenue at liberty.

(2.) The writ petitioner is mother of the detenue, Sri Manda David. The petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in E Office. No. 129/2023/C1, dtd. 22/5/2023, passed an order of detention under Sec 3(1) and (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, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. The said order of detention was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 1448, dtd. 24/7/2023 treating the detenue as 'drug offender' as defined under Sec.2(f) 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: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_7_LAWS(APH)2_2024_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The petitioner contends that out of three (3) cases registered against him, in all the cases, the detenue was granted bail. The detaining authority did not take into consideration the said fact while arriving at the satisfaction. The petitioner contends that copies of bail orders were not furnished to the detenue enabling him to submit his representation.