Kandregula Siva Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

KANDREGULA SI V A KUMAR, S/O.SATYA RAO, AG E D 48 YEARS, MALE, R/O. D. N O.30-91-6, KANITHI RH COLONY, WARD 53, VADLAPUDI, DUVVADA, VISHAKAPATNA M (RURAL), VISHAKAPATNAM CITY.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF A N DHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, S ECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AM A RAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE COMMISSI O NER OF POLICE/ADDITION A L DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PO L ICE COMMISSIONARATE, VISHA K APATNAM.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. VISAKHAPATNAM CIT Y .

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER/INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DUVVADA POLIC E STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM CIT Y .

¶16

THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRA L PRISON, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Petition under Artic l e 226 of the Constitution of India pr a ying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig h Court may be pleased topleased to iss u e writ order or direction more partic u larly one In the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the con s titution of India

¶19

2

¶20

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.10081 of 2025

¶21

directing the respondents to produce Loknath Veera Sai Srinivas @ Lokesh, Aged 23 years, Gavara by caste, R/o. D.No.30-91-6, Kanithi RH Colony, Ward 53, Vadlapudi, Duvvada, Vishakhapatnam (Rural), Vishakhapatnam, who is now detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, before this Honble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide proceedings C.No.8747/MC- lll/PD Act/2024, Dated 21.01.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal and unconstitutional and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents authorities may be pleased to allow the parents of the detenue to meet their son detenueLoknathVeera Sai Srinivas @ Lokesh, Aged 23 years, Gavara by caste, R/o. D.No.30-91-6, Kanithi RH Colony, Ward 53, Vadlapudi, Duwada, Vishakhapatnam (Rural), Vishakhapatnam, who is now detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, periodically on interview as per in the central prison, Vishakapatnamperodically as an interim as an measure pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents authorities may be pleased to allow the parents of the detenue to meet their son detenue Loknath Veera Sai Srinivas @ Lokesh, Aged 23 years, Gavara by caste, R/o. D.No.30-91-6, Kanithi RH Colony, Ward 53, Vadlapudi, Duwada, Vishakhapatnam (Rural), Vishakhapatnam, who is now detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, periodically on interview as per in the central prison, Vishakapatnamperodically as an interim measure pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶30

3

¶31

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.10081 of 2025

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶34

Challenging the order of preventive detention dated 21.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate, Police Commissionarate, Visakhapatnam, against the detenu by name Kandregula Loknath Veera Sai Srinivas @ Lokesh, who is the son of the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General appearing for official respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶36

Perused the pleadings in the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

¶37

4. Outline facts of the writ petition may be stated as follows:

¶38

The petitioner is the father of a person by name Kandregula Loknath Veera Sai Srinivas @ Lokesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’). About three cases were registered against the detenu. The said case in crime No.356 of 2021 was registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), the other crime in crime No.265 of 2024 was registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and the third crime in crime No.69 of 2022 was registered for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) under sections 448, 427, 324, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Therefore, as the petitioner has been frequently indulging in commission of the said crimes, respondent No.2detaining authority was of the view that his acts in repeatedly committing the said offences are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that he has to be detained preventively to prevent him from committing the similar nature of offences in future. Therefore, by the impugned order, he has passed an order of preventive detention in exercise of his powers conferred under

¶39

4

¶40

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.10081 of 2025

¶41

Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter called for short ‘the Act’). The said order was considered by the State and it has confirmed the said order, after complying with the due procedure of law, in G.O.Rt.No.469, GAD (SC.I), Department, dated 06.03.2025.

¶42

As can be seen from the impugned order of preventive detention, the detaining authority passed the said order on the basis of three crimes that were registered against him i.e., in crime No.356 of 2021 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, in crime No.69 of 2022 of Duvvada Police Station and in crime No.265 of 2024 of Duvvada Police Station.

¶43

The main grievance of the petitioner is that, even though three crimes were made basis for the purpose of passing the impugned order of preventive detention, the copies of the documents in only two crimes i.e., in crime No.69 of 2022 and crime No.265 of 2024 were only supplied to the detenu to enable him to make representation before the advisory board and the copies of the documents relating to the other crime in crime No.356 of 2021 are not supplied to him and as such, he is deprived of an opportunity to make an effective representation before the competent authority. So, according to him, the failure on the part of the detaining authority to supply the copies of the other crime, which was also made as basis for passing the order, has vitiated the impugned order of detention and it is liable to be set-aside.

¶44

In addition to the said ground, it is also the case of the petitioner that a reference was made by the detaining authority in his order regarding the opening of a rowdy sheet against the detenu and copies of the said rowdy sheet is also not furnished to him to make an effective representation before the competent authority.

¶45

5

¶46

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.10081 of 2025

¶47

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, while admitting that the copies in two crimes were supplied to the detenu, he fairly concedes that copies in other crime No.356 of 2021 are not supplied to him.

¶48

Therefore, when three crimes are made as basis for the purpose of passing the impugned order of preventive detention, which is clearly evident from the impugned order of preventive detention, certainly the failure on the part of the detaining authority to supply the copies of the documents in crime No.356 of 2021 and its non-supply to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation before the competent authority, which is a valuable right conferred on him under the statute, would vitiate the validity of the order of detention. Therefore, on that ground the impugned order of preventive detention is liable to be set-aside.

¶49

Although it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a reference was made regarding opening of the rowdy sheet against the detenu and the copies of the same are not supplied to him and it also vitiated the order of the preventive detention, we are not inclined to countenance the said contention. Though, a reference was made regarding opening of a rowdy sheet against the detenu, a careful perusal of the order shows that the opening of the said rowdy sheet is not made as basis for passing the impugned order of preventive detention. Only a passing reference was made incidentally. So, when the opening of rowdy sheet is not made as basis for passing the impugned order, the non-supply of the documents relating to said rowdy sheet will not have any adverse effect on the impugned order of preventive detention. But, as noticed supra , the failure to supply material documents in one crime, which was made as basis for passing the impugned order of preventive detention, vitiated the order in question. So, on that sole ground the impugned order of preventive detention is liable to be set-aside. Further, the petitioner is already in detention for a period of 11 months.

¶50

6

¶51

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.10081 of 2025

¶52

In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention, passed by respondent No.2 dated 21.01.2025, against the detenu, who is the son of the petitioner by name Kandregula Loknath Veera Sai Srinivas @ Lokesh and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.469, GAD (SC.I), Department, dated 06.03.2025 that was passed confirming the said order. The detenu by name Kandregula Loknath Veera Sai Srinivas @ Lokesh shall be forthwith released and he shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶55

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶56

Date: 22.11.2025 MDP

Kandregula Siva Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandregula Siva Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thippiri Gangadhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Devi Satya Sri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vs Sri B.Sankaraiah

Pangi Ramesh Vs the State of Ap

Pothula Ranga Rao Vs the State of Ap

Sk Siddiq Ahmed Vs the State of Ap