WP/21988/2025 of G VENKATA RAMANA Vs THE STATE OF AP on 21 January 2026

1. G VENKATA RAMA NO. 7-193, RAMALA RAJANAGARAM GODAVARI DISTRI

1. THE STATE OF SECRETARY GAD GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT.

3. THE SUPE RAJAMAHENDRAV Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue an order Habeas Corpus under A Detention Order dated 3 No.M1/530988/2025 whic vide G.O.Rt.No.1775 E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JAN O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND OURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH RIT PETITION NO: 21988/2025 ANA, S/O G. APPA RAO, AGED 55 AYAM VEEDHI, RAGHUNADHAPUR MANDAL, GSL MEDICAL COL ICT AND F AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS D, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, A T. AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAS RINTENDENT, CENTRAL VARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High r or direction more particularly one in t Article 226 of Constitution of India s 31.07.2025 passed by the 2nd Respo ch was subsequently confirmed by R dated 24.09.2025 as arbitrary, DESH

UARY DRANATH ROY .N 5 YEARS, DR RAM VILLAGE, LLEGE, EAST ...PETITIONER S PRINCIPAL AMARAVATHI, ST GODAVARI PRISON, T. SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be the nature of the etting aside the ondent vide Ref. espondent No.1 , illegal, and unconstitutional and direct the Respondents to produce the detenue i.e., G.Vasu ,S/o Venkataramana, Aged about 35 years, R/o Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Main prayer was amended as per c.o.dt.21.11.2025 Vide I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.21988 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 This Hon'ble Court may be to Permit the Petitioners and other relatives of the detenu to visit the detenu in prison. It is submitted that it is both a statutory right as well as a constitutional right of the detenu to get a visit from their kith and kin and any violation of such right would infringe the basic principles of justice and equity, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to 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 may be pleased to amend the Prayer as “it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of Constitution of India setting aside the Detention Order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent vide Ref. No. M1/530988/2025 which was subsequently confirmed by Respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.1775 dated 24.09.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional and direct the Respondents to produce the detenue i.e., G. Vasu S/o Venkataramana, Aged about 35 years, R/o Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case” in place of “it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of Constitution of India setting aside the Impugned Order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent vide Ref. No.M1/530988/2025 as illegal, unconstitutional, capricious and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR

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 31.07.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, against the detenu by name G.Vasu, who is the son of the petitioner, which in turn was confirmed by the State, as per G.O.Rt.No.1775, GAD (SC-I), Department dated 24.09.2025, the instant writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Mr. Singamsetty.V.M.Sankar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kirthi Teja Kodaveeti, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. About three crimes were registered against a person by name G.Vasu (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’), son of G.Venkata Ramana, for offences punishable under Section 7(B) read with 8(A) (B) and (C) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. As the detenu has been indulging in commission of the said offences repeatedly one after another, the 2nd respondent-detaining authority considered him as a Bootlegger as he was of the opinion that his acts in committing the said offences are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, he was of the opinion that an order of preventive detention is required to be passed against him to prevent him from committing the said offences in future in the larger public interest. Therefore, he has, by the impugned order dated 31.07.2025, passed an order of preventive detention against the detenu. The said order was considered by the State and the State in turn has confirmed the same, as per G.O.Rt.No.1775, GAD (SC.I), Department dated 24.09.2025. Since then, the detenu has been in custody.

4. The said order of preventive detention is now assailed by the father of the detenu, who is the petitioner herein, on two grounds. (1) The copies of the relevant documents based on which the order of preventive detention was passed are in English language and the detenu has only studied tenth class and he does not know English language and he cannot understand the same and the translated version of the said copies are not supplied to the detenu.

(2) The detenu was enlarged on bail in all the three crimes, even prior to passing the order of preventive detention and the said orders of bail are not placed before the detaining authority to consider the same to apply his mind whether to pass the order of preventive detention or not and it vitiates the impugned order of preventive detention. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed to set-aside the impugned order of preventive detention and to set the detenu at liberty.

5. Refuting the said contentions, the 2nd respondent has filed his counter. It is admitted in the counter that the detenu was enlarged on bail in two crimes prior to passing the order of preventive detention and that he was granted anticipatory bail in one crime and he was granted regular bail, after arrest, in other crime. But, it is pleaded that the copies of the said orders of bail are furnished to the detenu and they are also placed before the detaining authority and the requirement of law is complied with. So, it is denied that the copies of the orders of bail are not placed before the detaining authority. As regards the other ground is concerned, it is pleaded that the detenu is not an illiterate and he has studied tenth class, and as such, he is aware of English language and supply of the documents, which are in English language, is sufficient compliance of the requirement of law. It is also pleaded that the contents of the documents are also explained to the detenu in his vernacular language, which is Telugu and the mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution of India is sufficiently complied with. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order is not vitiated on the grounds alleged by the petitioner and thereby prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. We have meticulously gone through the material available on record. It is not in dispute that three crimes were registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under Section 7(B) read with 8(A) (B) and (C) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

7. Therefore, he comes under the definition of “Bootlegger”, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986. Admittedly, in one crime he was enlarged on bail on 30.07.2025 only on the previous day on which the impugned order of preventive detention was passed. Therefore, there is no possibility of placing the said order of bail before the detaining authority for him to consider it before passing the order. But, admittedly, in the other two crimes, anticipatory bail was granted to the detenu long prior to the date of passing the order of preventive detention i.e., on 14.02.2025 and in the other crime in crime No.99 of 2025 of Alamuru Police Station, he was arrested and he was enlarged on bail on 17.07.2025. The documents based on which the order of preventive detention was passed are placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority on 19.07.2025. Therefore, it is obvious that after the detenu was enlarged on bail on 17.07.2025, the relevant documents are placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority on 19.07.2025. So, exactly two days after granting bail the documents are placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority. But, the regular bail order dated 17.07.2025 is not placed before the detaining authority to enable him to consider the same and to apply his mind whether there is any need or necessity to pass an order of preventive detention or not. The law is now well settled that when the detenu was enlarged on bail whether on regular bail or anticipatory bail prior to passing the order of preventive detention, it is imperative on the part of the sponsoring authority to place the orders of bail before the detaining authority to enable him to consider the same and to decide whether to pass an order of preventive detention or not. Failure to place the said orders of bail, as per the settled law, vitiates the order of preventive detention and it cannot be sustained. The Apex Court in

Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra and others1 held at para No.9 as follows: “9. In a case where the detenu is released on bail and is enjoying his freedom under the order of the Court at the time of passing the order of preventive detention, then such order of bail, in our opinion, must be placed before the detaining authority to enable him to reach at the proper satisfaction.”

8. It is further held by the Apex Court that if the bail order is not produced before the detaining authority then the order of preventive detention will be rendered invalid.

9. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid law enunciated by the Apex Court in the above cited judgment, as the regular bail order is not produced before the detaining authority at the time of passing the impugned order of preventive detention, it has rendered the impugned order of preventive detention invalid. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

10. As it is found that the impugned order of preventive detention is not valid on the above ground of not producing the regular bail order before the detaining authority, there is no need to delve into the other aspect, which is raised by the petitioner, relating to non-supply of the translated version of the documents, as there is a disputed question of fact involved in it. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the detenu only studied tenth class and he is not aware of the English language, whereas, the learned Government Pleader contends that, as he has studied tenth class and as English is one of the subjects of the curriculum of tenth class that it is to be held that he is aware of the English language. Therefore, in view of the disputed fact that is involved, we are glossing over the said aspect, as it is 1 (2012) 2 SCC 72

found that the order is not valid on the other ground that is urged by the petitioner.

11. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention, passed by respondent No.2 dated 31.07.2025, against the detenu, who is the son of the petitioner by name G.Vasu and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.1775, GAD (SC.I), Department, dated 24.09.2025 that was passed confirming the said order. The detenu by name G.Vasu 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 HARINATH.N

Date: 22.01.2026 MDP