Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Pedda Matangi Mounika 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. 36968 of 2022
DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023
FACTS
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention of her husband by name Peddamathangi Bramhaiah @Brammaiah @Gummagadu, S/o Naganna, aged 30 years, passed by the 2nd respondent (The Collector & District Magistrate), Nandyal District as confirmed by the 1st respondent (The State and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that total twenty-seven crimes were registered against the detenue, out of which ten crimes were ended in acquittal, two crimes settled before lok-adalat, four crimes are bound over cases, convicted in one crime and ten crimes are at the stage of investigation and pending for trial. He further submits that the order of detention passed in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without any material.
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the orders impugned in the Writ Petition do not warrants any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In this case there is a lapse found while ordering detention and also confirming the same, resulting in the finding that the order itself is not good as per law. Further the detenue will not fall under the category of Section 2(g) of the Act as passing of order of preventive detention is on stale and non- existing grounds. There is no proximity or live link between any of the grounds which were taken as a basis for passing the order of preventive detention by the respondents.
JUDGEMENT
In this case the court held that the order of detention was not based on any material to either substantiate or justify the allegation that the detenue is a ‘Goonda’. More so, it has been specifically admitted and mentioned that in the twenty-seven cases which were taken for consideration there was no reference about the granting of bails in the concerned crimes. Thus, it wad obvious that the Sponsoring Authority has not placed the relevant material i.e., bail orders were not placed before the Detaining Authority and there was no effective consideration of this fact. His likelihood of committing crimes after release is also not properly considered. It is clear that the penal laws are sufficient to deal with the situation mentioned in the order of detention and that invoking provisions of preventive detention is completely unnecessary.
The order does not contain the involvement of detenue in the crimes alleged to have been participated by him to show it will effect or likely to affect public order or danger to the public life or health. The same is conspicuously silent in the orders passed by the sponsoring authority. In view of the same the order becomes contrary to law and unconstitutional.
In this case, Writ Petition was allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the State Government. Consequently, the detenue namely Peddamathangi Bramhaiah, aged 30 years, was directed to be released forthwith by the respondents.
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.”
