Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Detention Per Se Became Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Detention Order for Non-Inclusion of Bail Information

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Amravati has set aside a detention order, underscoring the criticality of procedural adherence in cases of preventive detention. The decision, delivered by the bench comprising Hon’ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao and Hon’ble Smt. Justice Kiranmayee Mandava, emphasized that the non-inclusion of bail information in the detention process renders the detention ‘per se illegal’.

The case, titled Thota Chittemma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, revolved around the detention of Bandam Nagamani under the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The petitioner sought the release of Nagamani, arguing that the detention was procedurally flawed due to the absence of bail order information.

Justice Rao, in the order, stated, “The detention per se became illegal.” This observation came in the wake of arguments presented by the petitioner’s counsel, Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, who contended that the detenue had been granted bail in four of the six crimes considered for the detention. The court found that this vital information was not included in the detention process.

The ruling further elaborates on the importance of safeguarding individual liberties, especially in the context of preventive detention. The bench referred to several precedents, underlining that the non-consideration of bail orders, especially conditional bails, is a ‘vital procedural violation’ and impacts the legality of detention.

This decision is a significant addition to the jurisprudence surrounding preventive detentions in India. It reinforces the principle that adherence to procedural safeguards is paramount, especially in cases involving personal liberty.

The High Court’s ruling has set a precedent for future cases, ensuring that detention orders are scrutinized meticulously to uphold the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. The decision is seen as a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s role in guarding against procedural lapses in the criminal justice system.

Date Of Decision: 10 November, 2023

Thota Chittemma VS The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Similar News