WP/28021/2025 of PASALA SURYA CHANDRA RAO Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 March 2026

1. PASALA SURYA C FLAT NO. 102, G EAST GODAVARI D

1. THE STATE OF SECRETARY, GEN SECRETARIAT BU DISTRICT.

2. THE COLLECTO DEPARTMENT, RAJAMAHENDRAV

3. THE SUPERINTEN

4. THE SUPERINTE RAJAMAHENDRAV

5. THE DISTRICT RAJAMAHENDRAV Petition under Articl circumstances stated in E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 28021/2025 CHANDRA RAO, S/O GANGARAJU, G-8, SATELLITE CITY, RAJAHMUN DISTRICT. AND F ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY NERAL ADMINISTRATION (SC-I) D ILDINGS, AMARAVATI, VELAGAPU OR AND DISTRICT MAGISTR EAST GODAVARI DIST VARAM. DENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVAR ENDENT OF JAILS, CENTRA VARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE VARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High DESH

DRANATH ROY GEDELA AGED 35, R/O NDRY RURAL, ...PETITIONER ITS CHIEF DEPARTMENT UDI, GUNTUR RATE HOME TRICT AT RI DISTRICT. AL PRISON, T. E OFFICER, T. SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 4th respondent to produce the detenu, Pasala Sathibabu, S/o. Gangaraju, aged 33, R/o. D.No.3-169/1,C Block, Rajamahendravaram Rural, Satellite city, East Godavari District who is in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, before this Honble Court, and set him at liberty forthwith by declaring the order of detention vide Ref.No.M1/532523/2025 dated 20-8-2025 passed by 2nd respondent, consequential approval order passed by 1st respondent vide G.O.R.T No. 1598 dated 1-9-2025 and the consequential confirmation order issued by 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.1890 General Administration SC-I Department dated 14-10-2025 as contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, against Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other and further orders. Main Prayer was amended as per c.o.dt.15.12.2025 Vide I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.28021 of 2025. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to direct the respondents to produce the detenue, Pasala Sathibabu, S/o: Gangaraju, aged: 33, R/o: D.No.3-169/1 ,C Block, Rajamahendravaram Rural, Satellite city. East Godavari District who is in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, before this Hon’ble Court, and forthwith set him at liberty and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 4 respondent to produce the detenu, Pasala Sathibabu, S/o: Gangaraju, aged: 33, R/o; D.No.3-169/1,C Block, Rajamahendravaram Rural, Satellite city. East Godavari District who is in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, who is in Central Prison Rajamahendravaram, before this Hon’ble Court, and set him at liberty forthwith by declaring the order of detention vide Ref. No. M1/532523/2025 dated 20-8-2025 passed by 2nd respondent, consequential approval order passed by 1st respondent vide G.O.R.T No. 1598 dated 1-9-2025 and the consequential confirmation order issued by 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.1890 (General Administration(SC-l) Department) dated 14-10- 2025 as contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, against Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other and further orders”. Instead of... It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 4rt respondent to produce the detenu, Pasala Sathibabu, S/o: Gangaraju, aged: 33, R/o: D.No.3-169/1,C Block, Rajamahendravaram Rural, Satellite city. East Godavari District who is in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, before this Hon’ble Court, and set him at liberty forthwith by declaring the order of detention vide Ref.No.Ml/532523/2025 dated 20-8-2025 passed by 2nd respondent and consequential approval order passed by 1st respondent vide G.O.R.T No.1598 dated 1-9-2025 as contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, against Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P VIVEK Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Challenging the order preventive detention dated 20.08.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, who is the detaining authority, which in turn was confirmed by the 1st respondent-State as per G.O.Rt.No.1890 GAD (SC.I), Department, dated 14.10.2025, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

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

3. The petitioner is the real brother of a person by name Pasala Sathibabu, son of Gangaraju (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’, for brevity). About 11 crimes were registered against him, relating to the offences punishable under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, under Section 7-B read with 8-A etc.,. Anticipatory bail was granted to him in two crimes out of the said eleven crimes and in one crime a regular bail was granted to him. However, even after grant of anticipatory bail on certain conditions and grant of regular bail, as the detenu has been repeatedly indulging himself in commission of the said crimes, the sponsoring authority has recommended for passing an order of preventive detention against him, to the 2nd respondent-detaining authority, as his acts in committing the said offences are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The 2nd respondent, after considering the material placed before him by the sponsoring authority, including the bail orders, was of the opinion that the detenu has been repeatedly indulging himself in commission of the said crimes which have the impact of affecting the maintenance of public order and injurious to the health of the public. Therefore, he has passed an order of preventive detention by the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 against him. The said order was considered by the State and it has confirmed the same by the impugned G.O.Rt.No.1890 GAD (SC.I), Department, dated 14.10.2025. Therefore, the detenu was taken into custody pursuant to the said order of preventive detention passed against him dated 20.08.2025 and since then he has been in custody.

4. The said order of preventive detention is challenged by the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu, essentially on three grounds. 1. The copies enclosed to the order of preventive detention which are made basis for passing the order of preventive detention are all in English language and the detenu does not know English language and the translated copies in his vernacular language, which is Telugu, are not supplied to him and it vitiates the order of preventive detention, 2. The detaining authority did not consider the impact of the conditions imposed against the detenu, while granting anticipatory bail and regular bail to him, while passing the order of preventive detention and failure to consider the impact of violation of the bail conditions vitiates the order of preventive detention and 3. The chemical analyst report does not contain the percentage of fusel oil contained in the liquor that was found to be in illegal possession of the detenu and which was sold by him and it also vitiates the impugned order of preventive detention. On the aforesaid three grounds, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order of preventive detention.

5. As regards ground Nos.1 and 3 are concerned, the petitioner could not make out any case to invalidate the order of preventive detention. Even though, the order of preventive detention and also the copies enclosed to it, which are supplied to the detenu are in English language, it is significant to note that the detenu himself has signed on the order of preventive detention in English as P.Sathibabu. Therefore, it cannot be said that he does not know English language or that he could not understand English language. Even in the writ petition also, the petitioner did not specifically plead that the detenu knows only to sign in English and that he does not know English language and he could not understand English language. It is in a vague manner pleaded in ground No.1 of page No.20 of the writ petition that the detenu is a Telugu speaking person and he does not understand English language. But, it is not specifically pleaded that he does not know English language at all and that he knows only to sign in English. Therefore, it cannot be said that the detenu is unable to understand English language. Therefore, there is no illegality in supplying the order of detention and the copies enclosed to it, to him, which are in English language, when he is able to sign on all the said papers in English. Therefore, on the said ground the petitioner cannot impeach the validity of the impugned order of preventive detention. As regards ground No.3 is concerned, even though earlier the law was that the percentage of fusel oil is to be clearly mentioned in the analyst report and if the percentage is not clearly mentioned in the analyst report that it vitiates the order of preventive detention, the said judgment was subsequently overruled by a full Bench of this Court in the case of Doddi Sharada and another v. Collector and District Magistrate and others1. Therefore, now it cannot also be a ground to impeach the legal validity of the impugned order of preventive detention. Therefore, the order of preventive detention, which is impugned in this writ petition, cannot be held to be invalid and set-aside on ground Nos.1 and 3 pleaded by the petitioner.

6. However, apropos the 2nd ground is concerned, we are of the considered view that the petitioner could make out a case to invalidate the impugned order of preventive detention. Admittedly in two crimes out of the eleven crimes, anticipatory bail was granted to the detenu and he was enlarged on regular bail in one crime. In all the said three bail applications, conditions were imposed against him to report before the Station House Officer concerned for a certain period of time. Therefore, undoubtedly, conditional bail was granted to him in three crimes out of the said eleven crimes. Now the law is well settled that when the bail was granted to the 1 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 408

detenu on conditions, the detaining authority also, while dealing with the conditions imposed in the bail applications, has to consider the impact of the said conditions also in the detention order. The law is well settled that if the impact of the said conditions in repeatedly committing the said offences by the detenu is not considered by the detaining authority in the order of preventive detention, it invalidates the order of preventive detention. The legal position in this regard is not res integra and the same has been well settled. The said legal position was dealt with by the Apex Court in Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India and others2 and also in the case of Nenavath Bujji Etc. v. The State of Telangana and others3. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid two judgments, a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in writ petition No.6176 of 2025, held in para No.12 of the judgment that even though the detaining authority has discussed about the conditions stipulated in the bail application in its order of preventive detention, if the detaining authority had not considered the impact of the said conditions in the order of preventive detention that it would fall foul of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Joyi Kitty Joseph’s case and Nenavath Bujji’s case and held that non-consideration of the affect of the conditions of bail and in restraining the detenu from carrying out future illegal activities would render the order of preventive detention invalid and thereby, has set-aside the order of preventive detention. Therefore, in view of the law enunciated in the aforesaid two judgments of the Apex Court, which was followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, admittedly as the detaining authority did not consider the impact of the conditions imposed against the detenu in the three bail orders, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of preventive detention is not valid under law and it is liable to be set-aside.

7. Therefore, on the aforesaid sole ground, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of preventive detention passed by respondent No.2 dated 2 (2025) 4 SCC 476 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367

20.08.2025, against the detenu, who is the brother of the petitioner by name Pasala Sathibabu is hereby set-aside along with the G.O.Rt.No.1890, GAD (SC.I), Department, dated 14.10.2025. The detenu by name Pasala Sathibabu shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 01.04.2026 MDP