Allowed¶42

Pangi Ramesh v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Nov 2025WP/18068/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P. No. 18068 of 2025; preventive detention quashed; grounds: 15-month delay in passing detention order after last NDPS crime registered 06.02.2024, and non-placement of bail orders before detaining authority vitiating subjective satisfaction; habeas corpus under Article 226; NDPS Act Sections 20b(ii)(B) r/w 8(c); detenu Killo Govardhan ordered released; G.O.Rt.No.579 dated 13.06.2025 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned order of preventive detention confirmed by G.O.Rt.No.579, Revenue (Excise.II) Department, dated 13.06.2025 set aside; detenu Killo Govardhan, S/o Puldar to be released forthwith and set at liberty if not required in any other crime; miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the Writ Petition stand closed. ¶42

Pangi Ramesh Vs the State of Ap — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the detaining authority was justified in passing the order of preventive detention in June 2025, almost 15 months after the last crime was registered in February 2024, when the detenu committed no such crime subsequently. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

When the detenu did not involve in any crime for a period of 15 months after the last crime was registered, the Court saw no justification in ordering preventive detention.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

No copies of the bail orders were placed before the detaining authority before passing the impugned preventive detention order; as per settled law this vitiates the order, and on both grounds the impugned order of preventive detention is unsustainable under law and liable to be set aside.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 filed by the cousin brother of detenu Killo Govardhan allowed; the preventive detention order dated 12.05.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Alluri Seetharamaraju (ASR) District, confirmed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Excise-II) Department vide G.O.Rt.No.579 dated 13.06.2025, was set aside. The Court held (i) that with the last of three NDPS Act crimes registered on 06.02.2024 and no crime registered thereafter, there was no justification for ordering preventive detention nearly 15 months later in June 2025; and (ii) that although the detenu had been enlarged on bail in all three crimes, the copies of the bail orders were not placed before the detaining authority to enable him to apply his mind and record his subjective satisfaction, which as per settled law vitiated the detention order. On these two grounds the impugned order of preventive detention was held clearly unsustainable under law; the detenu was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other crime, and miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

¶1

[3558]

¶2

APHC010357022025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

SATURDAY,TH E TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOV E MBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 18068/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

PANGI RAMESH, S /O. APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. 7- 33, DUMBRIVAL A SA VILLAGE, ARAMA P ANCHAYATHI, VISAKAPATANAM - 531151

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (EXCIS E -II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARI A T BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI A M ARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶14

THE SUPERINTE N DENT OF POLICE, AULLURI SEET H ARAMARAJU (ASR) DISTRICT, 5TH FLOOR, APIIC BUILDINGS, M ANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRIC T , ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, VISAKA P ATANAM.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 to issued writ o r der or direction more particularly on e in the nature of the writ of habeas cor p us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the 2 Respondent to produce Killo Govardhan, who is now detained in Central prison. Visak h apatnam, Visakhapatnam district be f ore this Honble court and the Detenu m a y be ordered to be released forthwit h after declaring

¶18

¶19

his detention vide C.No. 151/C2/DCRB-ASR/2025, dt. 12.05.2025, passed by the Respondent No.2 which was confirmed by the Respondent No.l vide G.O.Rt.No.579, dt.13.06.2025 Revenue (Excise.II) Dept., as illegal and un constitutional and pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.ANAND KUMAR KOCHIRI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

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

¶28

Challenging the order, dated 12.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2Superintendent of Police, Alluri Seetharamaraju (ASR) District, which was confirmed by respondent No.1-Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Excise-II) Department vide G.O.Rt.No.579 Revenue (Excise.II) Department, dated 13.06.2025 ordering for preventive detention of the detenu by name Sri Killo Govardhan (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’), the instant writ petition has been filed by the Writ Petitioner, who is his cousin brother.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

¶30

About three crime were registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under Sections 20b(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’). The last crime, out of the said three crimes, was registered on 06.02.2024. Therefore, as three crimes were registered against him under NDPS Act, the State is of the view that his acts in repeatedly indulging in the commission of the said crimes are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that it is essential to detain him preventively from committing similar nature of offences

¶31

in future in the larger interest of the public. The detenu was enlarged on bail in all the said crimes. Thereafter, in the month of June, 2025 , i.e ., on 13.06.2025,

¶32

¶33

the impugned order of preventive detention was passed almost after a period of 15 months from the date of registration of the last crime against the detenu.

¶34

The petitioner seeks to assail the impugned order of detention on two grounds.

¶35

When the last crime among the three crimes was registered long back in the month of February, 2024 and when he did not commit any such crimes subsequently, that the detaining authority is not justified in passing the order of detention after a period of 15 months in the month of June, 2025.

¶36

Even though the detenu was enlarged on bail in all the three crimes prior to passing the order of detention, that the copies of the said orders are not placed before the detaining authority to enable him to apply his mind to record his subjective satisfaction to justify the order of preventive detention.

¶37

We find merit and considerable force in the said two contentions raised

¶38

by the learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the legal validity of the order of detention. Admittedly, the last crime was registered against the detenu long back in the month of February 2024. No crime was registered against him thereafter. Almost 15 months after the last crime was registered,

¶39

the order of detention came to be passed in the month of June, 2025. Therefore, when the detenu did not involve in any crime for a period of 15 months after the last crime was registered, we see no justification in ordering for preventive detention.

¶40

¶41

Further, the law is well settled that when the detenu was enlarged on bail in the crimes that were made basis for passing the order of detention, that all the copies of the said bail orders shall be placed before the detaining authority to enable him to apply his mind to record his subjective satisfaction to pass order of preventive detention. Admittedly, no such copies of the orders of the bail were placed before him before passing the impugned order of preventive detention. Therefore, as per settled law, it vitiates the impugned order of preventive detention. Therefore, on the above two grounds, the impugned order of preventive detention is clearly unsustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶42

In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of preventive detention passed against the detenu, vide G.O.Rt.No.579 Revenue (Excise.II) Department, dated 13.06.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu by name Killo Govardhan, S/o Puldar shall be released forthwith and he shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other crimes.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶44

JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶45

JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 22.11.2025