P VENKATARAMANAPPA v. THE STATE OF AP
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
when the detenu is released on bail and enjoying his freedom under the order
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
2. THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 3.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 4.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, KADAPA YSR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(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 particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the constitution of India directing the 4th respondent to produce Pasupuleti Ramesh Babu, who is now detained in 2 Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR District before this more Honble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide Rc.No.MAGLl/E-29630, dt. 25.06.2025, passer-by the respondent which was confirmed by the respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 1471, dt.06.08.2025 General Administration (Law and Order) Dept., as illegal and un constitutional and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA AND
WRIT PETITION NO: 27051/2025
ORDER:
(Per Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) The order of preventive detention dated 25.06.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent – District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sri Satya Sai District against the detenu by name Pasupuleti Ramesh Babu, which in turn, was confirmed by the 1st respondent – State as per G.O.Rt.No.1471 General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 06.08.2025 is challenged in this writ petition.
Heard Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent-State.
The writ petitioner is the father of a person by name P.Ramesh Babu (hereinafter referred to as “detenu”). As 18 crimes were registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under various sections of law under Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the sponsoring authority was of the view that he has to be detained preventively and the sponsoring authority has submitted the proposals before the 2nd respondent- District Collector-cum-District Magistrate of Sri Satya Sai District to pass an order of preventive detention against the detenu to prevent him for committing 4 the similar nature of offences in future. The 2nd respondent after considering the material placed before him by the sponsoring authority has considered the detenu as a „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‟) and he was of the opinion that his acts in committing the said offences repeatedly are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that an order of preventive detention is required to be passed against the detenu. Therefore, by the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 he has ordered for his preventive detention. The said order, in turn, was confirmed by the State as per G.O.Rt.No.1471 General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated
06.08.2025. Since then, the detenu has been in custody.
The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu challenged the said order of preventive detention on the principal ground that even though the detenu was enlarged on bail in all the crimes even before passing the order of preventive detention that the said orders of bail are not placed before the detaining authority to enable him to consider the same to apply his mind to decide whether to pass an order of preventive detention against the detenu or not and failure to place the orders of bail before the detaining authority vitiates the impugned order of preventive detention and renders the same invalid. Therefore, he prays to set aside the order and set the detenu at liberty. 5
Counter of respondent No.2 has been filed refuting the allegations made in the writ petition and it is pleaded that as the detenu has been repeatedly committing the similar nature of offences and his acts are causing prejudice to the maintenance of the public order that it necessitates to pass an order of preventive detention against him and thereby prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
Even as per the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader except in one crime out of 13 crimes that are registered against the detenu, he was enlarged on bail in other 12 crimes prior to passing the impugned order of preventive detention. Therefore, when the detenu was enlarged on bail before passing the order of preventive detention, the law requires that the orders of bail are to be placed before the detaining authority before passing the order of preventive detention to enable him to consider the same to apply his mind whether to pass impugned order of preventive detention or not. Failure to place the orders of bail before him vitiates the proceedings and renders the order of preventive detention invalid. The legal position in this regard is not res nova and the same has been well settled in earlier judicial precedents rendered on the point.
Operative part
In Vasantu Sumalatha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 the said legal position is made clear at Para No.44 of the said judgment. It is stated in it that when the detenu is released on bail and enjoying his freedom under the order 1 2016 (1) ALT 738 (DB) 6 of the Court, the order of bail must be placed before the detaining authority, when the order of detention is passed, to enable him to reach a proper satisfaction and if the detaining authority was unaware of the order of bail, the detention order would be rendered invalid. In arriving the said conclusion, the Court relied on the earlier judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Vijay Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar 2, Jotha Viswanadh vs. Chief secretary, Govt. of A.P. rendered in W.P.No.10018 of 2012, dated
29.06.2012 and in the case of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite vs. State of Maharashtra3. At Para No.42 of the said judgment, it is held by the Division Bench of the common High Court that it is incumbent that all vital material relating to bail is to be placed before the detaining authority to enable him to arrive at the subjective satisfaction as to the necessity for passing an order of preventive detention as decided in M.Ahamedkutty vs. Union of India4 and State of U.P. vs. Kamal Kishore Saini5.
Following the said judgments, this Court in W.P.No.15808 of 2025 also has taken the same view as per the order dated 03.11.2025. Therefore, in view of the settled law as discussed supra, as the orders of the bail are not placed before the detaining authority before passing the impugned order of preventive detention, it renders the impugned order of preventive detention invalid and the same is liable to be set aside.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: when the detenu is released on bail and enjoying his freedom under the order
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 26 Feb 2026. The bench was CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.