Allowed

Kunchepu Sarojamma v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Apr 2023WP/867/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging a preventive detention order categorizing the petitioner's son as a 'Goonda', the Court set aside the order for failing to consider pending bail applications and irrelevant FIRs, relying on a similar judgment.

What did the court decide?

Detention order against Kunchepu Raghavendra set aside; petitioner's son directed to be released forthwith.

Kunchepu Sarojamma Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.867 of 2023

¶4

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Srinivas)

¶5

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention of her son Kunchepu Raghavendra @ Vadde Raghavendra @ Raghu, S/o.Kunchepu Ravi, in order of detention vide Rc.C1/987/M/2022, dt.15.09.2022 passed by the 2^nd respondent-The Collector & District Magistrate, Nandyal District as confirmed by the 1^st respondent-the State as per G.O.Rt.No.2505, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 22.11.2022 and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

¶6

The Collector and District Magistrate, Nandyal District, while categorizing the detenue as “Goonda” within the definition of Section 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act 1 of 1986’) passed the impugned order of detention. The said order of detention came to be confirmed by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.2505, General Administration (SC.I) Department, 22.11.2022.

¶7

Heard Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Khader Mastan, learned counsel attached to the office of learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

¶8

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2^nd respondent supplied a paper book, in which no information was given about the developments or other details, such as approving or confirming the order of detention. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that having waited for a considerable period as there are no further details about the prevention of detention order and they were put on dark about the details of preventive detention and that as her son is already languishing in Central Prison, Kadapa this case is filed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the order of preventive detention, it is stated that there are 10 different cases were registered against her son, out of which in six cases, his son was already released on bail and the same was suppressed as it is a vital information and this was not considered. In view of non-furnishing the information regarding the bail orders, the detenue could not submit an effective representation before the concerned authorities, thereby, it vitiates the entire order of preventive detention. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the issue in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.30649 of 2022, dated 06.03.2023. A copy of the said order is placed on record.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the seventh ground (Cr.No.92 of 2021 of Mahanandi Police Station Under

¶12

¶13

Section 110 Cr.P.C.,) is only a bound over case, which is described under Section 110 Cr.P.C., in fact, he submits that our High Court and several High Courts deprecated the practice of registering the F.I.R. on bound over procedures as it is a non existing case. Further eight to tenth grounds are about his involvement in arrack cases under Prohibition and Excise Act, which were not covered under Act 1 of 1986.

¶14

On the other hand, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is submitted by Sri Syed Khader Mastan, learned counsel attached to the office of Additional Advocate General that having regard to the gravity of the offences, the orders impugned in the Writ Petition do not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and he relied upon a judgment reported between Sunila Jain v. Union of India¹ .

¶15

A perusal of the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.30649 of 2022 clearly demonstrates that this court after discussing the law laid down in Gattu Kavitha v. State of Telangana² case and Rushikesh Thanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharastra³ case and three judge Bench judgment of Apex Court in Rekha v. State of Tamilnadu⁴ case, in which the Apex Court held as follows:

¶16

1 2006 (3)SCC 321

¶17

2 2017(1) ALD Crl.224

¶18

3 (2012) 2 SCC 72

¶19

4 2011 (5) SCC 244

¶20

¶21

“ The detaining authority was not even aware whether a bail application of the accused was pending when he passed the detention order, rather the detaining authority passed the detention order under the impression that no bail application of the accused was pending, but in similar cases bail had been granted by the courts. We have already stated above that no details of alleged similar cases have been given. Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained” .

¶22

After considering above, all those issues that have been raised in the present Writ Petition, were similar to the allegation raised in the aforesaid Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.30649 of 2022 and this Court allowed the said Writ Petition and granted relief in favour of the petitioner in the said Writ Petition.

¶23

In this case also the fact that the detenue was granted bail in many cases is not considered. The cases under Sec 110 Cr P C are bound over cases and are not criminal cases in the sense of the word. Lastly, cases under the Prohibition and Excise laws do not justify the categorization of the person as a Goonda as per the law laid down by this Court.

¶24

Having regard to all of the above, in the present case also the detenue will not fall under the category of Section 2(g) of the Act This Court could not find that for passing the order of detention there is

¶25

¶26

any material to either substantiate or justify the allegation that the detenue is a ‘Goonda’

¶27

For the reasons recorded, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms thereof, setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.C1/987/M/2022, dt.15.09.2022 as confirmed by the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.2505, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 22.11.2022 and

¶28

consequently the detenue namely Kunchepu Raghavendra @ Vadde Raghavendra @ Raghu, S/o Kunchepu Ravi, is directed to be released forthwith by the respondents if the detenue is not required in any other cases.

¶29