Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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

Latest Legal News