Urabindi Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Administration (SC-I) Department, Block, Floor, Interim Government Complex, A.P. Secretariat Office, Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522503.

¶12

The Collector & District Magistrate, Palnadu District, Narsaraopeta. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Palnadu District, Narsaraopeta.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents herein to produce my husband / Detenue i.e. Uribandi Manneaiah, S/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 39 years, R/o. Jangamaheswarapadu Village, Durgi Mandal, Palnadu District before this Honble Court and he may be set at liberty/ordered

¶16

to be released forthwith by declaring the Detention Order passed by the 2ND Respondent herein vide RC. No. 150/2024-C1, dated 22.01.2025 as confirmed by the Respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.217, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 31.01.2025 and the G.O.Rt.466 of General Administration (SC-1) Department dt. 06.03.2025 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4*'' respondent to permit the wife and brother in law of the detenue to meet the detenue.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶21

The Court made the following order:

¶22

1

¶23

RRR, J &TCDS, J W.P.No.6176 of 2025

¶24

APHC010122922025

¶25

QMS

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶27

AT AMARAVATI

¶28

[3529]

¶29

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶30

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETHDAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶34

WRIT PETITION No:6176 of 2025

Between:

Urabindi Lakshmi

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶40

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶42

INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶44

1.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶45

2.GP FOR HOME

¶46

The Court made the following Order:

¶47

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶48

Heard Sri Inkollu Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appearing for the

¶49

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in the office of the learned

¶50

Advocate General.

¶51

2

¶52

RRR, J &TCDS, J' W.P.No.6176 of 2025

¶53

The petitioner herein has moved the present writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to set aside the order of detention, nd dated 22.01.2025, passed by the 2 respondent and subsequent G.O.Rt.No.217 dated 31.01.2025 and G.O.Rt.No.466 dated 06.03.2025 and to set at Hberty her husband, who is the detenue.

¶54

The Superintendent of Police, Palnadu District, is said to have forwarded a request, dated 02.12.2024, for detaining the detenue under the provisions of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Legers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Detention Act’). The Collector and District Magistrate, Palnadu District by order dated 22.01.2025 in RC.No.150/2024-C1, after verifying the detention proposals and material placed before him, passed an order of detention for detaining the detenue Sri Uribandi Manneaiah, in central prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, A.P., until further orders are received from the Government. The Government of A.P,, had issued G.O.Rt.No.217, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 31.01.2025, approving the said order of detention and fixing the period of detention to be for a period of 12 months from 23.01.2025. The Advisory Board, after considering the representation of the detenue and after hearing the detenue as well as the investigating officer in its meeting held on 18.02.2025, had opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenue. On the basis of the above proceedings and the recommendation of

¶55

3

¶56

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.6176 of 2025

¶57

the Advisory Board, the Government of A.P., again issued G.O.Rt.No.466, dated 06.03.2025, confirming the detention of the detenue for a period of 12 months from 23.01.2025.

¶58

These proceedings are challenged by the petitioner in the present

¶59

writ petition.

¶60

The 2 nd respondent, who had initially passed the order of detention, dated 22.01.2025, filed a counter affidavit along with all the relevant material.

¶61

The aforesaid orders are challenged, on the basis of the following

¶62

grounds:

¶63

A) All the necessary documents, which are required to be supplied to the detenue, have not been served on the detenue.

¶64

a) the request of the Superintendent of Police, Palnadud District dated 02.12.2024, which is the basis for detention order,^{hasnotbeservedon} the detenue:

¶65

b) The case papers including the F.I.Rs, judgments and Lok Adalat Awards pertaining to 8 cases referred in the detention order, have not been served on the detenue.

¶66

/ i; i

¶67

RRR, J&TCDs, j W.P.No.6176of2025 1

¶68

The petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court - JaseelaShaJi vs. Union of India and Ors.,'contends that non-supply of these documents is fatal to the detention proceedings. B) The detaining authority . viz., the 2""' respondent, while recording the grant of bail to the petitioner i in various crimes, did not take i - into account the conditions attached to such bail orders and whether such conditions would be sufficient to prevent further i Involvement of the detenuelin any illegal activity,

¶69

C) The detaining authority considered seven cri criminal cases, in his order of detention to hold that the detenue was a habitual offender, who also meets the definition of “Goonda set out under the Detention Act. The definition of “Goonda’ set out in the Detention Act, at Section 2(g), stipulates that “Goonda would be a person, who by himself or along with others, habitually commits or attempts to commit offences XVII punishable under Chapteror Chapter-XXII of the Indian Penal Code. The detaining authority considered seven criminal cases pending against the detenue to hold that on account of these cases, the detenue would have to be treated as “Goonda”. These cases are-

¶70

T Cr.No.20/2024 U/s 15.02.2024. 147, 148, 307, 324 R/W 149 IPC of Durgi PS, dated

¶71

Cr.No.28/2024 U/S 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 427, 506 R/W 149 IPC of

¶72

. Durgi PS, dated 22.03.2024

¶73

(2024) 9 see 53 = 2024 see Online Se 2496 - - 2024 INSe 683

¶74

5

¶75

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No,6176 of 2025

¶76

3= Cr.No.56/2024 U/s 27 Arms Act, 5 of Explosive Substance Act of Durgi PS, dated 08.05.2024.

¶77

Cr.No.79/2024 U/s 143, 147, 148, 427, 324, 506,^{307r/w149IPCof} Macherla Town PS, dated 13.05.2024.

¶78

Cr.No.59/2024 U/S 143, 147, 307, 332, 435, 436,^{427r/w149IPCof} Karempudi PS, dated 15.05.2024.

¶79

Cr.No.97/2024 U/s 3(a) of Explosive Act of Durgi PS, dated 07.07.2024.

¶80

Cr.No.111/2024 U/sec. 5 of Explosive Substance Act of Durgi PS, dated 02.08.2024.

¶81

However, Crime No.56/2024 (SI.No.3); Crime No.97/2024 (SI.No.6); and Crime No.111/2024 (SI.No.7) are under the Arms Act and Explosive Substance Act. These cases could not have been taken into account by the detaining authority and inclusion of these cases in^{theconsiderationofthe} detaining authority vitiates the order of detention and all subsequent proceedings. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of Nenavath Bujji Etc.

¶82

vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.,^.

¶83

D) The order of the detaining authority had passed on^22.01.2025. However, G.O.Rt.No.217, dated 31.01.2025, and G.O.Rt.No.466, dated 06.03.2025, referred to an order of detention dated 24.01.2025. This order of detention has never been served on the detenue and both the Government Orders confirming and extending detention of the detenue^{wouldhavetobe} set aside on this ground.

¶84

^ 2024 INSC 239 = 2024 SCC Online SC 367

¶85

6

¶86

RRR, J&TCDS, J . W.P.No.6176 of 2025

¶87

E) The order of detention, dated 22.01.2025, was passed on the basis of consideration of seven criminal cases against the detenue. The said order also mentions the fact that there were eight more cases which had been registered against the detenue. in both G.O.Rt.No.217 dated 31.01.2025 and G.O.Rf.No.466 dated 06.03.2025. the Government appears to have taken into account the eight cases, which were mentioned in the order of detention and not the seven cases, which were the basis on which the detention order had been passed. For this reason also, the subsequent G.O.Rt.No.217 dated 31.01.2025 and G.O.Rt.No.466 dated 06.03.2025 would have to be set aside.

¶88

F) The detaining authority, while referring to the eight cases mentioned in the detention order, had recorded that three of these eight cases, had been compromised in Lok Adalat proceedings on account of the fear generated by the detenue. However no material has been referred to for arriving at such a decision. Though the satisfaction of the detaining authority ISi subjective satisfaction, which cannot, normally, be called into question, the fact remains that the detaining authority must have some material on the basis of which such a subjective satisfaction is arrived. No such material is referred in the detention order.

¶89

G) The detaining authority, after recording ail the cases that are said to be pending against the detenue, had concluded the detention order by a ba"!^ statement that the detenue is a habitual criminal and a dangerous and desperate person, who has become incorrigible, and that the penal provisions

¶90

7

¶91

RRR, J &TCDS, J W.P.No.6176 of 2025

¶92

of the Indian Penal Code would not have a deterrent effect to prevent further violent acts. The detaining authority has not set out any reasons as to why such a conclusion has been drawn. In the absence of proper reasons, such a subjective satisfaction is not sufficient. The petitioner relies upon NenavathBuyjji Etc. vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.,

¶93

The 2^^ respondent in his counter affidavit stated that the request of the Superintendent of Police had only been mentioned in the passing, to indicate that the detention proceedings had been initiated at the request of the Superintendent of Police. However, the contents of the request were not the basis on which the detention order was passed and hence^there was^noneed to pass on the said request.

¶94

The detaining authority went into the details of the^variouscases registered against the detenue, including Crime No.^{107of2022wherethe} detenue is said to have attacked and killed another person with deadly weapons due to which the people in the region had become^terrifiedand it had affected the public order. The 2^'^ respondent also set out various grounds to justify the said order. The details of these contentions are not being extracted further as the same may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the grounds raised by the petitioner.

¶95

Consideration of the Court:

¶96

The grounds raised by the petitioner, as recorded above, are being considered in seriatim.

¶97

8

¶98

RRR, J &TCDS, J ' ip W.P.No.6176 of 2025

¶99

Ground-A

¶100

As rightly pointed out by the detaining authority, the supply of the request of the Superintendent of Police does not vitiate any of the proceedings as the detaining authority had not relied upon the said request for coming to a subjective satisfaction, of the need to place the detenue under preventive detention. The non-supply of the bail orders and Lok Adalat awards also does not vitiate the detention order as these cases were not considered and were only mentioned in passing.

¶101

Ground-B

¶102

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaseela Shaji vs= The Uniofn of India &Ors., had held that wherever a detenue had been released on bail, the detaining authority would have to examine the conditions stipulated in such bail orders for the purpose of ascertaining whether such conditions were sufficient to stop the detenue from indulging in future criminal activities. Failure to consider such conditions, and the effect of such conditions, in the detention order, would be sufficient to set aside such an order of detention.

¶103

In the present case, the detaining authority, while discussing each criminal case, had also set out whether bail had been granted or not and the conditions of bail, wherever such conditions had been stipulated. To that extent, the detaining authority was in compliance of the requirements set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the detention order does not show that th?’’ detaining authority had considered the impact of these conditions in

¶104

9

¶105

RRR, J &TCDS, J W.P.No.6176 of 2025

¶106

the detention order. To that extent, it would have to be held that the order of detention falls foul of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joyi Kitty Joseph vs. Union of India &Ors.,^. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nenavath Bujji Etc. vs. The State of Telangana and Ors., had also taken the same view and had held that non-consideration of the conditions of bail and their effect in restraining the detenue from carrying out future illegai activities would have to be considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had further held that the authorities could as well consider moving applications for cancellation of bail before taking the further step of directing preventive^detention.

¶107

In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it must be held that the present order of detention, which has been passed without considering the effect of the conditions of bail, on the ability of the detenue to carryout future illegal and violative acts, and the same renders the order invalid.

¶108

Ground-C

¶109

Section 2(g) of the Detention Act, defines “Goonda in the following manner.

¶110

“Section 2(g);"goonda" means a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter^XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code;”

¶111

X (^025) 4 see 476 = 2025 See Online Se 509

¶112

10

¶113

RRR, J & TCDS, J- -it W.P.No.6176 of 2025

¶114

Under this definition, a person can be treated as “Goonda” if cases have been registered against him for offences under the aforesaid Chapters of the Indian Penal Code. Registration of any criminal cases, under any of the other provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other Criminal Act would not bring the petitioner within the ambit of “Goonda”. In the present case, the detaining authority considered seven criminal cases filed against the detenue to hold that the detenue would come within the definition of “Goonda”. However, three of these cases viz.. Crime No.56/2023, Crime No.97 of 2024 and Crime No. 111 of 2024 were registered under the Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act. These criminal cases could not have been considered, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the detenue can be treated as “Goonda” or not. The inclusion of these cases for determining that the petitioner is a “Goonda”, is not permissible, though the other four cases would have been sufficient to hold that the detenue is a “Goonda”.

¶115

Ground-D

¶116

.16. The contention of the petitioner is that the order of detention passed against him is dated 22.01.2025 while G.O.Rt.No.217 dated 31.01.2025 and G.O.Rt.No.466, dated 06.03.2025 speak of an order iof detention passed on 24.01.2025. A perusal of these G.Os, would make it clear that there was a typographical error in as much as reference No.2 in both these G.Os is a radio message, dated 23.01.2025, received from the

¶117

11

¶118

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.6176 of 2025

¶119

Superintendent of Police of Jails. This clearly shows that reference No.1 detention order would only be before 23.01.2025 and^{notafter23.01.2025.A} typographical error cannot become a ground for setting aside a detention order.

¶120

Ground-E

¶121

In the detention order, dated 22.01.2025, the detaining authority had arrived at a subjective satisfaction of the requirement to place the detenue under preventive detention on the basis of seven criminal cases, which were discussed in detail in the detention order. Apart from these seven cases, the detaining authority had also mentioned another eight cases, which were pending against the detenue at different stages. These^{caseswerenottaken} into account,by the detaining authority. However, G.O.Rt.No.466, dated 06.03.2025 speaks of these eight cases, which were^enumerated in the order of detention, but were not taken into account by the detaining authority, while arriving at his subjective satisfaction. In such circumstances, the consideration, by the Government, of the eight cases,^{whichwerenottaken} into account by the detaining authority, and ignoring the seven cases considered by the detaining authority, while affirming the detention order, is clearly impermissible and invalidates the order of affirmation in G.O.Rt.No.466, dated 06.03.2025.

¶122

12

¶123

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.6176 of2025

¶124

• ^

¶125

Ground-F

¶126

The detaining authority had mentioned, i , in the order of detention, that three out of the eight additional cases, enumerated in the order, had been compromised before the Lok Adalat on account of the fear created by the detenue. The petitioner contends that there is no material to show the basis for such subjective satisfaction and consequently, the order of detention has to be set aside. The detaining authority states that these cases had been compromised out of the fear generated by the detenue the said statement does not affect the detention order as the detaining authority had taken into account only seven cases enumerated at the beginning of the detention order and did not base his order on the eight cases which are also mentioned separately. In the circumstances, this objection would not affect the validity of the detention order.

¶127

Ground-G

¶128

The order of detention commences with the grounds of detention where the facts relating to seven cases are recorded. Thereafter, the eight other cases are mentioned and the stages of these cases are set out. The detaining authority, in paragraph 11, of his counter, specifically states that the eight additional cases, which were mentioned in the detention order had not been relied upon and had been set out only to refer to the criminal background and history of the detenue. After recording all these facts, the detaining authority had recorded that he was satisfied that the detenue falls into the

¶129

13

¶130

RRR, J &TCDS, J W.P.No.6176 of 2025

¶131

category of “Goonda” and preventive detention was necessary as a precautionary measure based on a reasonable prpgnosis of the future behavior of the detenue, based on his past conduct. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar language in a detention orderⁱⁿ Nenavath Bujji Etc. vs. The State of Telangana and Ors., had taken the view that the authority, should set out in clear terms, the reasons why he was satisfied that an order of detention was necessary. The Hon’ble Supreme^{Courtfurtherheld} that such satisfaction cannot be inferred by a mere^{statementintheorder.}

¶132

The guidelines set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case, is set out below:

¶133

We summarize our conclusions as under:

¶134

(i) The Detaining Authority should take into consideration only relevant and vital material to arrive at the requisite subjective satisfaction,

¶135

(ii) It is an unwritten law, constitutional and administrative, that wherever a decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of the statutory functionary, there is an implicit duty to apply his mind to the pertinent and proximate matters and eschew those which are irrelevant & remote,

¶136

(iii) There can be no dispute about the settled proposition that the detention order requires subjective satisfaction^of the detaining authority which, ordinarily, cannot be questioned by the court for insufficiency of material. Nonetheless, if the detaining authority does not consider relevant circumstances or considers wholly unnecessary,

¶137

X,

¶138

14

¶139

RRR, J & TCDS, J ^ W.P.No.6176 of 2025

¶140

immaterial and irrelevant circumstances then such subjective satisfaction would be vitiated,

¶141

(iv) In quashing the order of detention, the Court does not sit in judgment over the correctness of the subjective satisfaction. The anxiety of the Court should be to ascertain as to whether the decision-making process^for reaching the subjective satisfaction is based on objective facts or influenced by any caprice, malice or irrelevant considerations or non-application of mind,

¶142

(V) While making a detention order, the authority should arrive at a proper satisfaction which should be reflected clearly, and in categorical terms, in the order of detention (vi) The satisfaction cannot be inferred by mere statement in the order that “it was necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. Rather the detaining authority will have to justify the detention order from the material that existed before him and the process of considering the said material should be reflected in the order of detention while expressing its satisfaction. (vii) Inability on the part of the state's police machinery^to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention, (viii) Justification for such an order should exist in the ground(s) furnished to the detenu to reinforce the order of detention. It cannot be explained by reason(s)/grounds(s) not furnished to the detenu. The decision of the authority must be the natural culmination of the application of mind to the relevant and material facts available on the record. and

¶143

15

¶144

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P,No.6176 of 2025

¶145

(ix) To arrive at a proper satisfaction warranting^anorder of preventive detention, the detaining authority must, first examine the material adduced against the prospective detenu to satisfy itself whether his conduct or antecedent(s) reflect that he has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, second. If the aforesaid satisfaction is arrived at, it must further consider whether it is likely that the said person would act in a manner prejudicial to the public order in near future unless he is prevented from doing so by passing an^order of detention. For passing a detention order based on subjective satisfaction, the answer of the aforesaid aspects and points must be against the prospective detenu. The absence of application of mind to the pertinent and proximate material and vital matters would show lack of statutory satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority.

¶146

In the present case, the detaining authority has not complied with guidelines (v), (vi) and (ix) as the detention order does not show any such reflection of the material placed before the detaining authority, which would invalidate the order of detention. Mere repetition of the standard line of subjective satisfaction is not sufficient, 22. For all the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the order of detention, dated 22.01.2025, passed by the² nd respondent and G.O.Rt.No.217, dated 31.01.2025 and G.O.Rt.No.466, dated 06.03.2025, are set aside, with a further direction to the respondents to forthwith release the

¶147

16

¶148

RRR, J & TCDS, J . W.P.No.6176 of 2025

¶149

detenue, if he is not under any order of incarceration or remand. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶150

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand

¶151

closed.

¶152

Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Chief Secretary, General Administration (SC-I) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, 1®* Block, 1®* Floor, Interim Government Complex, A.P. Secretariat Office, Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522503.

¶157