WP/19395/2025 of PINNINTI RAVI SUDHAKAR Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 26 January 2026

1. PINNINTI RAVI SUD YEARS, R/O. D.NO BASTI, ROAD NO. HILLS, KHAIRATAB

1. THE STATE OF AN SECRETARY, SE VELAGAPUDI GUN

2. THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT

3. THE SUPERINTEN

4. THE SUPE RAJAMAHENDRAV

5. THE DEPUTY SU EAST GODAVARI D

6. THE INSPECTOR O EAST GODAVARI D E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANU O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 19395/2025 DHAKAR, S/O. VIJAYA BHASKARA R O. 8-2-548/61, SECOND FLOOR, DO .7, BACK SIDE TWISTERS BUILDIN BAD, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA ST AND NDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED ECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMA NTUR DISTRICT AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAS DENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVAR RINTENDENT, CENTRAL VARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT PERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CE DISTRICT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM OF POLICE, 1 TOWN L AND O POL DISTRICT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM ...RES DESH

UARY DRANATH ROY GEDELA RAO, AGED 33 OODH KHAANA NG, BANJARA TATE ...PETITIONER BY ITS CHIEF ARAVATI AT ST GODAVARI RI DISTRICT PRISON, T NTRAL ZONE M LICE STATION, M SPONDENT(S):

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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing to produce Pinninti Srikar, who is now detained in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District before this Hon’ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide ROC No. Ml/511638/2025 dated 08.02.2025 passed by 2nd respondent which was approved by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.347, General Administration (Law and Order) Dept, dated 17.02.2025 and G.O.Rt.No.592 dated 24.03.2025 confirming the Order of the 2nd respondent dated 08.02.2025 as illegal and unconstitutional and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. DUGGIRALA SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

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

Challenging the order of preventive detention dated 08.02.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent against the detenu by name Pinninti Srikar, who is the brother of the petitioner, considering him as “Goonda” as defined under Section 2(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’), the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu.

2. About seven crimes were registered against the detenu by name Pinninti Srikar (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’) in various Police Stations. Out of the seven crimes, five crimes were registered under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) and other two crimes were registered under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS’). Therefore, as the detenu has been repeatedly indulging in commission of various crimes and as his acts are found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the 2nd respondent-detaining authority was of the view that it is essential to pass an order of preventive detention against him to prevent him from committing the similar nature of offences in the larger interest of public. Therefore, considering him as a “Goonda” as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act, the impugned order of preventive detention was passed by the 2nd respondent. The same was in turn confirmed by the State as per G.O.Rt.No.592 GAD (SC-I) Department dated 24.03.2025. Since then, the detenu has been in detention.

3. The said order of preventive detention is challenged by the petitioner on twin grounds. Firstly, it is contended that when the detaining authority has passed the impugned order of preventive detention terming the detenu as “Goonda”, taking the crimes said to have been committed under the NDPS Act also to term him as a “Goonda”, is legally unsustainable and the impugned order of preventive detention is liable to be set-aside on that ground and secondly, it is contended that when the detenu was enlarged on bail even prior to the date of passing the order of preventive detention, the orders of the said bail are not placed before the detaining authority to enable him to consider the same and to apply his mind whether to pass an order of preventive detention or not and failure to place the said orders of bail before the detaining authority also vitiates the impugned order of the preventive detention.

4. Section 2(g) of the Act defines “Goonda”. It reads thus: “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.

5. Therefore, a plain reading of the definition of “Goonda”, as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act makes it manifest that only when a person has been habitually committing or abetting to commit or abets commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the IPC, then only he can be termed as “Goonda”. Insofar as the five crimes are concerned, which are registered under IPC and BNS Act, no doubt they come within the purview of the offences covered by Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the IPC. But, the other two crimes which are registered under the NDPS Act do not come within the purview of Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the IPC. Though the said offences come under the purview of the definition of “Drug Offender”, the detaining has not considered the detenu as a “Drug Offender” to pass the impugned order of preventive detention. When he has considered him only as a “Goonda” for the purpose of passing the impugned order of preventive detention, he cannot take irrelevant crimes as basis for the purpose of passing the impugned order of preventive detention. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others1 had an occasion to deal with the said legal position. In the said case, it is held that a ground is said to be irrelevant when it has no connection with the satisfaction of the authority making the order of detention. Irrelevant grounds, being taken into consideration for making the order of detention, are sufficient to vitiate the order. One irrelevant ground is sufficient to vitiate the order as it is not possible to assess, in what manner and to what extent that irrelevant ground operated on the mind of the appropriate authority and contributed to his satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Thus, it is a well settled law that when irrelevant grounds are taken into consideration for the purpose of passing the impugned order of preventive detention, it will not be valid under law and the same is liable to be set-aside. Therefore, the impugned order of preventive detention is bad under law on that ground.

6. As regards the second ground is concerned, admittedly, the detenu was enlarged on bail in four crimes prior to passing of the order of preventive detention and he was acquitted in three crimes prior to passing of the order of preventive detention. But, the said orders of bail are not placed before him to enable him to consider the same to apply his mind whether to pass the impugned order of preventive detention or not. It is a well settled law that failure to place the orders of bail before the detaining authority while passing the order of preventive detention, to enable him to apply his mind whether to pass or not the said order of preventive detention, vitiates the impugned order of preventive detention. In the said facts and circumstances of the case, as the said orders of bail are not placed before the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of preventive detention, the impugned of preventive detention is not valid under law and it is liable to be set-aside on that ground also.

1 (1979) 4 SCC 370

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention, passed by respondent No.2 dated 08.02.2025, against the detenu, who is the brother of the petitioner by name Pinninti Srikar and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.592, GAD (SC-I), Department, dated 24.03.2025 that was passed confirming the said order. The detenu by name Pinninti Srikar shall be forthwith released and set at liberty, 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: 27.01.2026 MDP