Andhra Pradesh HC sets aside PIT-NDPS detention: bail orders and detenu's custody in another case not placed before detaining authority

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Date of judgment: 10 October 2026
Case: WP/439/2026
Parties: PANGI MANGAMMA Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: RAVI NATH TILHARI, PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI
Outcome: Allowed

Summary

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has set aside an order of preventive detention passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act). A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi held that the order was vitiated because the bail orders in the criminal cases relied on were not placed before, or considered by, the detaining authority, because the detenu's judicial custody in another NDPS case was not brought to that authority's notice, and because the detenu was not told of his right to make a representation to the Central Government.

The writ petition (WP No.439 of 2026) was a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 filed by the detenu's relative, challenging the detention of Pangi Krishna Rao, held in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam. The order was G.O.Rt.No.1258 Revenue (Excise.II) Department dated 14.10.2025, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government under Section 3(1) of the PIT NDPS Act, and confirmed by G.O.Rt.No.1671 dated 31.12.2025.

The order rested on five NDPS Act cases registered between 2016 and 2024 at the Paderu, G.Madugula, Pedabayalu and Kovvuru Town police stations. The detenu had been granted bail, on conditions, in all five. The petitioner was represented by Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy and the State by Sri Keerthi Teja Kondaveeti, Government Pleader. The Bench allowed the petition and directed release.

The question before the court

Whether non-placing and non-consideration of bail orders and bail conditions vitiates the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction
Whether failure to tell the detaining authority that the detenu was in judicial custody in another case vitiates the order
Whether the detenu had to be informed of his right to make a representation to the Central Government under the PIT NDPS Act

What each side argued

Petitioner: bail orders for grounds 1, 4 and 5 were not placed before the detaining authority or supplied to the detenu, so relevant material was ignored and his right to represent was affected.
Petitioner: the detenu was in judicial custody in Crime No.127/2025 (Annavaram Police Station) when the order was passed, and this was not brought to the detaining authority's notice.
Petitioner: relying on Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel, the detenu was not informed of his right to represent to the Central Government and other competent authorities.
State: Crime No.127/2025 was registered on 09.06.2025, after the proposal of 21.05.2025, so it could not be communicated; bail orders for grounds 2 and 3 were considered and supplied.
State: relying on K.Varadharaj v. State of T.N., considering bail orders is not mandatory in every case; the detenu was told of his right to represent to the detaining authority and the advisory board, made no representation, and the detaining and confirming authority is the same Principal Secretary.

The court's decision

The Court noted it was undisputed that the detenu was in judicial custody in Crime No.127/2025. That case was not a basis of the detention, but it was not communicated to the detaining authority either. The Court held this was relevant material, since judicial custody bears on whether detention is still required. The submission of the Government Pleader that the case was registered after the proposal was considered. The Court found that the case was registered on 09.06.2025 and the order was passed on 14.10.2025, almost four months later, leaving time to inform the detaining authority.

The Court accepted that a person in custody can validly be detained, subject to the triple requirements restated in Champion R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya (drawing on Kamarunnissa). Here, bail had been granted on conditions in all five cases, yet the detaining authority was required to consider the bail orders in all of them and their conditions, not only those for grounds 2 and 3. Non-consideration of the bail orders and conditions vitiated the order.

The Court relied on Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite, Joyi Kitty Joseph and its own decision in Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi, which treat bail orders and conditions as relevant material for subjective satisfaction. It did not accept the State's reliance on K.Varadharaj. That case does not say bail orders need not be considered where the detenu is in custody in another case, or where a bail order contains a vital fact. Whether a bail order has a vital fact depends on each case, and the Court held bail conditions are such a fact.

On representation, the Court applied Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel: where the order is made by an officer specially empowered by the State Government, the detenu has a right to represent to the Central Government too and must be informed of it. This was not done. In Alfiya A. v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court observed that addressing one representation to the detaining authority cannot cure the failure to inform the detenu of that right.

The writ petition was allowed. The preventive detention order dated 14.10.2025 and the confirmation order dated 31.12.2025 were set aside. The detenu is to be set at liberty immediately if he is not in detention in any other pending case. There was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Precedents referred to

Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India (1995) 4 SCC 51
K. Varadharaj v. State of T.N. (2002) 6 SCC 735
Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 72
Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India (2025) 4 SCC 476
Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P.No.33545 of 2025 (APHC, 22.06.2026)
M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 1
Alfiya A. v. State of Kerala, SLP(Crl.) No.8439 of 2026 (SC, 28.07.2026)
Champion R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya

Provisions referred to

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, Section 3(1)
Constitution of India, Article 226
Constitution of India, Article 22(5)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Preventive Detention Habeas Corpus Criminal Constitutional Narcotics

Related judgments

Delhi High Court Dismissed ·5 Oct 2026 ·Writ Jurisdiction

High Court declines independent inquiry, compensation and fresh guidelines over December 2019 Jamia police action

The question: Whether an independent commission, SIT or transfer of investigation should be ordered for the alleged police excesses at Jamia Millia Islamia on 13 and 15 December 2019

A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain, has dismissed a batch of eight writ petitions arising from the events at and around Jamia Millia Islamia University in December 2019, in the backdrop of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the proposed NRC. The petitioners had sought an independent judicial commission, court-monitored committee or Special Investigation Team, compensation for injuries and alleged unlawful detentions, guidelines on police action inside educational institutions, and preservation of evidence. The Court held that the case did not fall within the narrow category of exceptional cases that justify use of its extraordinary jurisdiction. It noted that two FIRs had been registered and investigated by a Special Investigation Team of the Crime Branch and charge-sheets filed, that the National Human Rights Commission had inquired into the incidents and reported on 18.05.2020, and that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the University had been dismissed on 03.02.2021 and not challenged. The Court stressed that this was not a finding on the merits of the allegations or on the culpability of any individual. The petitions were filed by different petitioners after the police action of 15.12.2019. The Supreme Court had earlier, on 17.12.2019, declined to set up a single committee and left the aggrieved persons to approach the High Courts concerned. Several prayers had become infructuous by passage of time, and the arguments were confined to the surviving reliefs. The Court did not interfere in respect of the incidents at Aligarh Muslim University, where the Allahabad High Court Division Bench had requested the NHRC to undertake a complete inquiry.

W.P.(C)/13469/2019

Madras High Court Dismissed ·21 Aug 2026 ·Criminal

Madras HC: accused cannot demand his own representation to the CBI as an unrelied document at charge-framing stage

The question: Whether an accused can obtain, at the stage of framing of charge, a document not relied upon by the prosecution, under Section 207 Cr.P.C. read with Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice or Section 91 Cr.P.C.

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS by A. Raja, a sitting Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), against an order of the Special Judge for trial of criminal cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. The Special Judge had dismissed his application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. read with Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which sought copies of documents the prosecution had not relied upon. The petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.23 of 2022, which arises from FIR RC-MA1-2015-A-0037 registered by the CBI/ACB, Chennai. He faces charges under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of that Act. While the case was at the stage of framing of charges, he asked for a copy of a representation he had himself submitted on 22.08.2015 seeking closure of the FIR, together with the decision the CBI took on it. The Special Judge dismissed the application on 08.12.2025 (Crl.M.P.No.10038 of 2025). The High Court held that the representation was admittedly with the petitioner and was not a document of sterling quality, that it fell under none of the categories in Section 207, and that its non-supply would cause no prejudice to his defence. It found no infirmity in the Special Judge's order and dismissed the petition.

CRL OP/7122/2026

J&K and Ladakh High Court Allowed ·6 Oct 2026 ·Preventive Detention

J&K High Court quashes PSA detention over bovine transport cases: no 'public order' link and right to represent not communicated

The question: Whether failure to tell the detenue of his right and the time limit to represent to the detaining authority vitiates a detention order under Article 22(5)

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed a Public Safety Act detention order passed against a 65-year-old man from Doda, who was accused of illegal transportation of bovines and cruelty to animals. Justice M A Chowdhary held that the order could not stand because the detenue was not told that he could represent to the detaining authority within a time limit, and because the grounds of detention were almost a copy of the police dossier. The Court also found nothing to link the registered cases with the maintenance of 'public order'. The petition (HCP No. 35/2026) was filed through the detenue's son against Detention Order No. PSA/02 of 2026 dated 28.04.2026, issued by the District Magistrate, Doda, to prevent the detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order'. The petitioner said the order was passed mechanically, without application of mind, and in breach of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The detention record showed two cases at Police Station Doda: FIR No. 0050/2026 under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and an FIR under Section 299 BNS. Besides these, DD entries dated 25.02.2026, 27.02.2026 and 01.03.2026 were also relied on. The respondents defended the order as purely preventive. The Court heard the matter, reserved judgment on 01.10.2026 and pronounced it on 06.10.2026.

HCP/35/2026