The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has set aside a preventive detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act), ruling that the non-placement and non-consideration of bail orders and bail conditions, along with the failure to inform the detenu of his constitutional right to submit a representation to the Central Government, invalidates the detention. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi allowed the habeas corpus petition, holding that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority stood vitiated due to non-consideration of vital material.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Pangi Mangamma, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the preventive detention of the detenu, Pangi Krishna Rao, lodged in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam.
The preventive detention order was issued vide G.O.Rt.No. 1258 Revenue (EXCISE.II) Department on October 14, 2025, by the Principal Secretary to the Government under Section 3(1) of the PIT NDPS Act, 1988, and subsequently confirmed on December 31, 2025, vide G.O.Rt. No. 1671. The detention order was founded on five criminal cases registered under the NDPS Act:
- Cr.No. 28 of 2016 under Section 20(B)(1) at Paderu Police Station.
- Cr.No. 10 of 2023 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) at G. Madugula Police Station.
- Cr.No. 24 of 2023 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) at Pedabayalu Police Station.
- Cr.No. 103 of 2023 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) at Kovvuru Town Police Station.
- Cr.No. 95 of 2024 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 read with 8(c) at Paderu Police Station.
Submissions of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri D. Purna Chandra Reddy argued that the detenu had secured bail in all five cases. However, the sponsoring authority failed to place the bail orders pertaining to ground numbers 1, 4, and 5 before the detaining authority, thereby vitiating subjective satisfaction due to non-consideration of relevant material. Furthermore, copies of these bail orders were never supplied to the detenu, impeding his right to make an effective representation.
The counsel highlighted that the detenu was already in judicial custody at the time the detention order was issued, in connection with another case—Crime No. 127/2025 of Annavaram Police Station. This crucial fact was suppressed from the detaining authority. Placing reliance on Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India, the counsel contended that the detenu was never apprised of his valuable statutory and constitutional right to submit a representation to the Central Government, rendering the detention order invalid.
Opposing the petition, Sri Keerthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Government Pleader, submitted that Crime No. 127/2025 was registered on June 9, 2025, after the proposal for detention had already been submitted on May 21, 2025, making it impossible to include at that stage. He argued that bail orders were duly considered for ground numbers 2 and 3, and relied on K. Varadharaj v. State of T.N. to contend that it is not mandatory in every single case to place all bail orders before the detaining authority. The Government Pleader further stated that the detenu was informed of his right to represent to the detaining authority and the advisory board, and since the detaining and confirming authority was the same Principal Secretary to Government, there was no breach of rights, particularly when the detenu made no representation at all.
Analysis of the Court
Examining the record, the Bench noted that although Crime No. 127/2025 was registered on June 9, 2025, the preventive detention order was passed four months later on October 14, 2025. The Court observed that this material fact could have easily been communicated before the order was made.
Referring to Champion R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya, which cited the triple test in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that while a detention order can be passed against an individual in custody, the authority must be aware of the custody, possess reason to believe on reliable material that there is a real possibility of release on bail and repetition of prejudicial activity, and find detention essential to prevent it.
Addressing the non-placement of bail orders, the Bench cited Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra (referencing Rekha v. State of T.N.) and Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (which discussed Ponnada Geetha, Vasanthu Sumalatha, and M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India), noting that bail orders and the conditions attached to them constitute vital material. Referring to Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India, the Court underscored that the detaining authority was duty-bound to examine whether conditions imposed during grant of bail were sufficient to curb repetitive offences.
The Bench noted: “We are of the considered view that non consideration of the bail orders and the bail conditions, certainly vitiated the order of preventive detention.”
Distinguishing K. Varadharaj v. State of T.N., the Court observed: “The bail conditions, in our view, are such vital fact for consideration to arrive at subjective satisfaction.”
On the question of the right to make a representation, the Bench examined Section 12 of the PIT NDPS Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution alongside Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and Alfiya A. v. State of Kerala. The Court emphasized that under Section 12(1), the Central Government holds independent statutory power to revoke a detention order issued by an officer specially empowered by the State Government. Consequently, the detenu must be informed of this specific right.
The Court held: “Consequently, the detenu must have been informed of his right to make the representation to the Central Government as well, which was not done.”
The Decision
Finding multiple fatal infirmities—including non-consideration of bail orders and conditions, suppression of existing judicial custody, and failure to inform the detenu of his right to submit a representation to the Central Government—the High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court set aside the preventive detention order dated October 14, 2025, and the confirmation order dated December 31, 2025, directing that the detenu be released forthwith if not required in any other pending case.
Case Title: Pangi Mangamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and 4 others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 439 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi
