Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Urabindi Lakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 2025
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
APHC010122922025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SMB
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction) i
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 6176 OF 2025
Between:
Urabindi Lakshmi, W/o. Manneiah, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Janga
Maheswarapadu Village, Durgi Mandal, Palnadu District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, General
Administration (SC-I) Department, Block, Floor, Interim
Government Complex, A.P. Secretariat Office, Velagapudi, Guntur
District - 522503.
2. The Collector & District Magistrate, Palnadu District, Narsaraopeta.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, East
Godavari District.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Palnadu District, Narsaraopeta.
...Respondents
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 a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents herein
to produce my husband / Detenue i.e. Uribandi Manneaiah, S/o. Anjaiah,
Aged about 39 years, R/o. Jangamaheswarapadu Village, Durgi Mandal,
Palnadu District before this Honble Court and he may be set at liberty/ordered
to be released forthwith by declaring the Detention Order passed by the 2ND
Respondent herein vide RC. No. 150/2024-C1, dated 22.01.2025 as
confirmed by the Respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.217, General Administration
(SC.I) Department, dated 31.01.2025 and the G.O.Rt.466 of General
Administration (SC-1) Department dt. 06.03.2025 as arbitrary, illegal and
unconstitutional.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the 4*'' respondent to permit the wife and brother in law of
the detenue to meet the detenue.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU
Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Court made the following order:
1
RRR, J &TCDS, J
W.P.No.6176 of 2025
APHC010122922025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
QMS
AT AMARAVATI [3529]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETHDAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No:6176 of 2025
Between:
Urabindi Lakshmi ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL
2.GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following Order:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri Inkollu Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in the office of the learned
Advocate General.
2
RRR, J &TCDS, J'
W.P.No.6176 of 2025
2.
The petitioner herein has moved the present writ petition for
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to set aside the order of detention,
dated 22.01.2025, passed by the 2 nd
respondent and subsequent
G.O.Rt.No.217 dated 31.01.2025 and G.O.Rt.No.466 dated 06.03.2025 and to
set at Hberty her husband, who is the detenue.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Palnadu District, is said to have
forwarded a request, dated 02.12.2024, for detaining the detenue under the
provisions of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Legers,
Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land
Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Detention Act'). The
Collector and District Magistrate, Palnadu District by order dated 22.01.2025
in RC.No.150/2024-C1, after verifying the detention proposals and material
placed before him, passed an order of detention for detaining the detenue Sri
Uribandi Manneaiah, in central prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District,
A.P., until further orders are received from the Government. The Government
of A.P,, had issued G.O.Rt.No.217, General Administration (SC.I) Department,
dated 31.01.2025,
approving the said order of detention and fixing the period
of detention to be for
a period of 12 months from 23.01.2025. The Advisory
Board, after considering the representation of the detenue and after hearing
the detenue as well
as the investigating officer in its meeting held on
18.02.2025, had opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the
detenue. On the basis of the above proceedings and the recommendation of
3
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.6176 of 2025
the Advisory Board, the Government of A.P., again issued G.O.Rt.No.466,
dated 06.03.2025, confirming the detention of the detenue for a period of 12
months from 23.01.2025.
4. These proceedings are challenged by the petitioner in the present
writ petition.
nd
5. The 2 respondent, who had initially passed the order of
detention, dated 22.01.2025, filed a counter affidavit along with all the relevant
material.
6. The aforesaid orders are challenged, on the basis of the following
grounds:
A) All the necessary documents, which are required to be supplied
to the detenue, have not been served on the detenue.
a) the request of the Superintendent of Police, Palnadud District dated
02.12.2024, which is the basis for detention order, has not be served on
the detenue:
b) The case papers including the F.I.Rs, judgments and Lok Adalat
Awards pertaining to 8 cases referred in the detention order, have not
been served on the detenue.
/
i;
i
RRR, J&TCDs, j
W.P.No.6176of2025 1
The petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
- JaseelaShaJi vs. Union of India and Ors.,'contends non-supply of that
these documents is fatal to the detention proceedings.
B) The detaining authority . viz., the 2""' respondent, while
recording the
grant of bail to the petitioner i
in various crimes, did not take- iinto account the
conditions attached to such bail orders and whether
such conditions would be
sufficient to prevent further i
Involvement of the detenuel
in any illegal activity,
C)
The detaining authority considered seven cri
criminal cases, in his
order of detention to hold that the detenue
was a habitual offender, who also
meets the definition of "Goonda
set out under the
Detention Act. The
definition of "Goonda'
set out in the Detention Act, at Section 2(g), stipulates
that "Goonda would be
a person, who by himself
habitually commits or along with others,
or attempts to commit offences
XVII punishable under Chapter-
or Chapter-XXII of the Indian Penal Code.
The detaining authority
considered seven criminal cases
pending against the detenue to hold that on
account of these
cases, the detenue would have
These cases are- to be treated as "Goonda".
T Cr.No.20/2024 U/s
147, 148, 307, 324 R/W
15.02.2024. 149 IPC of Durgi PS, dated
2. Cr.No.28/2024 U/S
147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 427, 506 R/W
149 IPC of
. Durgi PS, dated 22.03.2024
/
(2024) 9 see 53 =
2024 see Online Se 2496 - - 2024 INSe 683
5
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No,6176 of 2025
3= Cr.No.56/2024 U/s 27 Arms Act, 5 of Explosive Substance Act of Durgi
PS, dated 08.05.2024.
4. Cr.No.79/2024 U/s 143, 147, 148, 427, 324, 506, 307 r/w 149 IPC of
Macherla Town PS, dated 13.05.2024.
5. Cr.No.59/2024 U/S 143, 147, 307, 332, 435, 436, 427 r/w 149 IPC of
Karempudi PS, dated 15.05.2024.
6. Cr.No.97/2024 U/s 3(a) of Explosive Act of Durgi PS, dated 07.07.2024.
7. Cr.No.111/2024 U/sec. 5 of Explosive Substance Act of Durgi PS, dated
02.08.2024.
However, Crime No.56/2024 (SI.No.3); Crime No.97/2024 (SI.No.6);
and Crime No.111/2024 (SI.No.7) are under the Arms Act and Explosive
Substance Act. These cases could not have been taken into account by the
detaining authority and inclusion of these cases in the consideration of the
detaining authority vitiates the order of detention and all subsequent
proceedings. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of Nenavath Bujji Etc.
vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.,^.
D) The order of the detaining authority had passed on 22.01.2025.
However, G.O.Rt.No.217, dated 31.01.2025, and G.O.Rt.No.466, dated
06.03.2025, referred to an order of detention dated 24.01.2025. This order of
detention has never been served on the detenue and both the Government
Orders confirming and extending detention of the detenue would have to be
set aside on this ground.
^ 2024 INSC 239 = 2024 SCC Online SC 367
6
RRR, J&TCDS, J .
W.P.No.6176 of 2025
E)
The order of detention, dated 22.01.2025, was passed on the
basis of consideration of
seven criminal cases against the detenue. The said
order also mentions the fact that there were eight more cases which had been
registered against the detenue. in both G.O.Rt.No.217 dated 31.01.2025 and
G.O.Rf.No.466 dated 06.03.2025. the Government appears to have taken into
account the eight cases, which
were mentioned in the order of detention and
not the seven cases, which
were the basis on which the detention order had
been passed. For this
reason also, the subsequent G.O.Rt.No.217 dated
31.01.2025 and G.O.Rt.No.466 dated 06.03.2025 would have to be set aside.
F)
The detaining authority, while referring to the eight cases
mentioned in the detention order, had recorded that three of these eight
cases, had been compromised in Lok Adalat proceedings on account of the
fear generated by the detenue. However no material has been referred to for
arriving at such a decision. Though the satisfaction of the detaining authority ISi
subjective satisfaction, which
cannot, normally, be called into question, the
fact remains that the detaining authority must have some material on the basis
of which such a subjective satisfaction is arrived. No such material is referred
in the detention order.
G)
The detaining authority, after recording ail the cases that are said
to be pending against the detenue, had concluded the detention order by a
ba"!^ statement that the detenue is a habitual criminal and a dangerous and
desperate person, who has become incorrigible, and that the penal provisions
7
RRR, J &TCDS, J
W.P.No.6176 of 2025
of the Indian Penal Code would not have a deterrent effect to prevent further
violent acts. The detaining authority has not set out any reasons as to why
such a conclusion has been drawn. In the absence of proper reasons, such a
subjective satisfaction is not sufficient. The petitioner relies upon
NenavathBuyjji Etc. vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.,
7. The 2^^ respondent in his counter affidavit stated that the request
of the Superintendent of Police had only been mentioned in the passing, to
indicate that the detention proceedings had been initiated at the request of the
Superintendent of Police. However, the contents of the request were not the
basis on which the detention order was passed and hence there was no need
to pass on the said request.
8. The detaining authority went into the details of the various cases
registered against the detenue, including Crime No. 107 of 2022 where the
detenue is said to have attacked and killed another person with deadly
weapons due to which the people in the region had become terrified and it had
affected the public order. The 2^'^ respondent also set out various grounds to
justify the said order. The details of these contentions are not being extracted
further as the same may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the
grounds raised by the petitioner.
Consideration of the Court:
9. The grounds raised by the petitioner, as recorded above, are
being considered in seriatim.
8
RRR, J &TCDS, J '
W.P.No.6176 of 2025 ip
Ground-A
10.
As rightly pointed out by the detaining authority, the supply of the
request of the Superintendent of Police does not vitiate any of the proceedings
as the detaining authority had not relied upon the said request for coming to a
subjective satisfaction, of the need to place the detenue under preventive
detention. The non-supply of the bail orders and Lok Adalat awards also does
not vitiate the detention order as these cases were not considered and were
only mentioned in passing.
Ground-B
11.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaseela Shaji vs= The Uniofn of
India &Ors., had held that wherever a detenue had been released on bail, the
detaining authority would have to examine the conditions stipulated in such
bail orders for the
purpose of ascertaining whether such conditions were
sufficient to stop the detenue from indulging in future criminal activities. Failure
to consider such conditions, and the effect of such conditions, in the detention
order, would be sufficient to set aside such an order of detention.
12.
In the present case, the detaining authority, while discussing each
criminal case, had also set out whether bail had been granted or not and the
conditions of bail, wherever such conditions had been stipulated. To that
extent, the detaining authority was in compliance of the requirements set out
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the detention order does not show
that th?'' detaining authority had considered the impact of these conditions in
9
RRR, J &TCDS, J
W.P.No.6176 of 2025
the detention order. To that extent, it would have to be held that the order of
detention falls foul of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joyi Kitty
Joseph vs. Union of India &Ors.,^. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Nenavath
Bujji Etc. vs. The State of Telangana and Ors., had also taken the same
view and had held that non-consideration of the conditions of bail and their
effect in restraining the detenue from carrying out future illegai activities would
have to be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had further held that the
authorities could as well consider moving applications for cancellation of bail
before taking the further step of directing preventive detention.
13. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
it must be held that the present order of detention, which has been passed
without considering the effect of the conditions of bail, on the ability of the
detenue to carryout future illegal and violative acts, and the same renders the
order invalid.
Ground-C
14. Section 2(g) of the Detention Act, defines "Goonda in the
following manner.
"Section 2(g);"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;"
X
(^025) 4 see 476 = 2025 See Online Se 509
10
RRR, J & TCDS, J-
W.P.No.6176 of 2025 -it
15.
Under this definition, a person can be treated as "Goonda" if
cases have been registered against him for offences under the aforesaid
Chapters of the Indian Penal Code. Registration of any criminal cases, under
any of the other provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other Criminal Act
would not bring the petitioner within the ambit of "Goonda". In the present
case, the detaining authority considered seven criminal cases filed against the
detenue to hold that the detenue would come within the definition of "Goonda".
However, three of these cases
viz.. Crime No.56/2023, Crime No.97 of 2024
and Crime No. 111 of 2024
were registered under the Arms Act and Explosive
Substances Act. These criminal
cases could not have been considered, for
the purpose of ascertaining whether the detenue can be treated as "Goonda"
or not. The inclusion of these
cases for determining that the petitioner is a
"Goonda", is not permissible, though the other four cases would have been
sufficient to hold that the detenue is a "Goonda".
Ground-D
.16.
The contention of the petitioner is that the order of detention
passed against him
is dated 22.01.2025 while G.O.Rt.No.217 dated
31.01.2025 and G.O.Rt.No.466, dated 06.03.2025 speak of an order iof
detention passed on 24.01.2025. A perusal of these G.Os, would make it clear
that there was a typographical error in as much as reference No.2 in both
these G.Os is a radio
message, dated 23.01.2025, received from the
11
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.6176 of 2025
Superintendent of Police of Jails. This clearly shows that reference No.1
detention order would only be before 23.01.2025 and not after 23.01.2025. A
typographical error cannot become a ground for setting aside a detention
order.
Ground-E
17. In the detention order, dated 22.01.2025, the detaining authority
had arrived at a subjective satisfaction of the requirement to place the detenue
under preventive detention on the basis of seven criminal cases, which were
discussed in detail in the detention order. Apart from these seven cases, the
detaining authority had also mentioned another eight cases, which were
pending against the detenue at different stages. These cases were not taken
into account,by the detaining authority. However, G.O.Rt.No.466, dated
06.03.2025 speaks of these eight cases, which were enumerated in the order
of detention, but were not taken into account by the detaining authority, while
arriving at his subjective satisfaction. In such circumstances, the
consideration, by the Government, of the eight cases, which were not taken
into account by the detaining authority, and ignoring the seven cases
considered by the detaining authority, while affirming the detention order, is
clearly impermissible and invalidates the order of affirmation in
G.O.Rt.No.466, dated 06.03.2025.
12
RRR, J & TCDS, J • ^
W.P.No.6176 of2025
Ground-F
18.
The detaining authority had mentioned,, iin the order of detention,
that three out of the eight additional
cases, enumerated in the order, had been
compromised before the Lok Adalat
on account of the fear created by the
detenue. The petitioner contends that there is no material to show the basis
for such subjective satisfaction
and consequently, the order of detention has
to be set aside. The detaining authority states that these cases had been
compromised out of the fear generated by the detenue the said statement
does not affect the detention order
as the detaining authority had taken into
account only seven cases enumerated
at the beginning of the detention order
and did not base his order on the eight cases which
are also mentioned
separately. In the circumstances, this objection would not affect the validity of
the detention order.
Ground-G
19.
The order of detention
commences with the grounds of detention
where the facts relating to
seven cases are recorded. Thereafter, the eight
other cases are mentioned and the stages of these cases
are set out. The
detaining authority, in paragraph 11, of his counter, specifically states that the
eight additional
cases, which were mentioned in the detention order had not
been relied upon and had been
set out only to refer to the criminal background
and history of the detenue. After recording all these
facts, the detaining
authority had recorded that he
was satisfied that the detenue falls into the
13
RRR, J &TCDS, J
■
W.P.No.6176 of 2025
category of "Goonda" and preventive detention was necessary as a
precautionary measure based on a reasonable prpgnosis of the future
behavior of the detenue, based on his past conduct. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court while dealing with a similar language in a detention order in Nenavath
Bujji Etc. vs. The State of Telangana and Ors., had taken the view that the
authority, should set out in clear terms, the reasons why he was satisfied that
an order of detention was necessary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held
that such satisfaction cannot be inferred by a mere statement in the order.
20. The guidelines set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
aforesaid case, is set out below:
43. We summarize our conclusions as under:
(i) The Detaining Authority should take into consideration
only relevant and vital material to arrive at the requisite
subjective satisfaction,
(ii) It is an unwritten law, constitutional and administrative,
that wherever a decision-making function is entrusted to
the subjective satisfaction of the statutory functionary,
there is an implicit duty to apply his mind to the pertinent
and proximate matters and eschew those which are
irrelevant & remote,
(iii) There can be no dispute about the settled proposition
that the detention order requires subjective satisfaction of
the detaining authority which, ordinarily, cannot be
questioned by the court for insufficiency of material.
Nonetheless, if the detaining authority does not consider
relevant circumstances or considers wholly unnecessary,
X,
14
RRR, J & TCDS, J ^
W.P.No.6176 of 2025
immaterial and irrelevant circumstances then such
subjective satisfaction would be vitiated,
(iv) In quashing the order of detention, the Court does not
sit in judgment over the correctness of the subjective
satisfaction. The anxiety of the Court should be to
ascertain as to whether the decision-making process for
reaching the subjective satisfaction is based on objective
facts or influenced by any caprice, malice or irrelevant
considerations or non-application of mind,
(V) While making a detention order, the authority should
arrive at a proper satisfaction which should be reflected
clearly, and in categorical terms, in the order of detention
(vi) The satisfaction cannot be inferred by mere statement
in the order that "it was necessary to prevent the detenu
from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order". Rather the detaining authority will have to
justify the detention order from the material that existed
before him and the
process of considering the said
material should be reflected in the order of detention while
expressing its satisfaction.
(vii) Inability on the part of the state's police machinery to
tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse
to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention,
(viii) Justification for such an order should exist in the
ground(s) furnished to the detenu to reinforce the order of
detention. It cannot be explained by reason(s)/grounds(s)
not furnished to the detenu. The decision of the authority
must be the natural culmination of the application of mind
to the relevant and material facts available on the record.
and
15
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P,No.6176 of 2025
(ix) To arrive at a proper satisfaction warranting an order
of preventive detention, the detaining authority must, first
examine the material adduced against the prospective
detenu to satisfy itself whether his conduct or
antecedent(s) reflect that he has been acting in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, second.
If the aforesaid satisfaction is arrived at, it must further
consider whether it is likely that the said person would act
a manner prejudicial to the public order in near future
in
unless he is prevented from doing so by passing an order
of detention. For passing a detention order based on
subjective satisfaction, the answer of the aforesaid
aspects and points must be against the prospective
detenu. The absence of application of mind to the
pertinent and proximate material and vital matters would
show lack of statutory satisfaction on the part of the
detaining authority.
21.
In the present case, the detaining authority has not complied with
guidelines (v), (vi) and (ix) as the detention order does not show any such
reflection of the material placed before the detaining authority, which would
invalidate the order of detention. Mere repetition of the standard line of
subjective satisfaction is not sufficient,
22.
For all the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the
order of detention, dated 22.01.2025, passed by the 2 nd
respondent and
G.O.Rt.No.217, dated 31.01.2025 and G.O.Rt.No.466, dated 06.03.2025, are
set aside, with a further direction to the respondents to forthwith release the
16
RRR, J & TCDS, J .
W.P.No.6176 of 2025
detenue, if he is not under any order of incarceration or remand. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand
closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Chief Secretary, General Administration (SC-I) Department, State
of Andhra Pradesh, 1®* Block, 1®* Floor, Interim Government Complex,
A.P. Secretariat Office, Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522503.
2. The Collector & District Magistrate, Palnadu District, Narsaraopeta.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison Rajamahendravaram, East
Godavari District. (BY SPEED POST)
4. The Superintendent of Police, Palnadu District, Narsaraopeta.
5. One CC to Sri Inakollu Venkateswarlu, Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CCs to The Addl. Advocate General, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh [OUT]
7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
8. Two CD Copies
Cnr
<0
HIGH COURT
DATED:20/08/2025
HABEAS CORPUS
ORDER
WP NO. 6176 OF 2025 1 Current 2 n mSection 2o?5 Si;
ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS