Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Mekala Puspha Reddy vs The State of AP
BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS
WRIT PETITION No. 40489 of 2022
DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023
FACTS
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention of her husband Mekala Vamsidhar Reddy, S/o C.Rami Reddy aged 32 years, passed by the 2nd respondent(The Collector & District Magistrate, Tirupati District), which was confirmed by the 1st respondent (State) and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.
The Collector and District Magistrate, Tirupati District, while categorizing the detenue as “Goonda” within the definition of Section 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 and passed the impugned order of detention. The same was confirmed by the 1st Respondent.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of detention passed in a mechanical manner and non-existent grounds; that basing on the three different cases registered against the detenue, the impugned order is passed; that in all the three cases initially the detenue was not shown as accused and basing on the confession of other accused, he was falsely implicated in cases under Section 457 and 380 of IPC; that there is every possibility for him to obtain bail in the said cases, but the said fact was suppressed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority and due to non-furnishing of relevant material, the detenue lost opportunity to submit an effective representation before the concerned authorities. He also submits that the penal laws are sufficient to deal with the situation and that invoking the provisions of preventive detention is completely unnecessary. He further submits that the detaining authority did not supply the material relied on by them within the stipulated period of five days and only the order and grounds of detention along with material supplied after about three weeks, but the subsequent developments such as approval and confirmation of the order of preventive detention were not even informed to the detenue, thereby, it vitiates the entire order of preventive detention.
In this case, the detaining authority has not considered the vital aspect that the detenue was shown as accused basing on the confession of other accused. Similarly, the fact that the detenue was in judicial custody at the time of passing detention order is not considered and no reasons are assigned that he will commit further crimes. It is not clear how the authority came to the conclusion that the ordinary law is not sufficient to prevent the alleged crimes and that invoking provisions of preventive detention is completely unnecessary as settled by this Court in several judgments.
JUDGEMENT
This hon’ble court heald that, this Writ Petition was allowed, setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 05.07.2022 as confirmed by the State Government. Consequently, the detenue namely Mekala Vamsidhar Reddy, S/o C.Rami Reddy, aged 32 years, was directed to be released forthwith by the respondents if the detenue is not required in any other cases
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
