IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Preventive detention – There is fine distinction between “law and order” and “public order” – Mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on maintenance of public order.
(2) Preventive detention – Mere apprehension on part of detaining authority that in the event of detenu being released on bail, she was likely to indulge in similar crimes that would be prejudicial to maintenance of public order would not be a sufficient ground to order her preventive detention.

JUDGMENT :

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant who is the daughter of the detenu Aruna Bai alias Anguri Bai is aggrieved by the order of detention dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders [Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders] Act, 1986 (for short the Act of 1986). She approached the High Court of Telangana by preferring Writ Petition No. 12443 of 2025 for challenging the aforesaid order. The Division Bench of the High Court however refused to interfere with the order of detention and dismissed the said writ petition on 28.10.2025. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. The grounds of detention as referred to in the order of detention dated 10.03.2025 indicate consideration of the criminal history of the detenu. There is reference to Crime No. 243/ 2024 dated 16.09.2024 registered under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at the Prohibition and Excise Station Dhoolpet, District Hyderabad. There is also reference to Crime No. 270/2024 dated 12.12.2024 registered against the detenu under similar provisions as in the first crime. The detenu came to be arrested on 12.12.2024 and while she was in judicial custody, Crime No. 42/2024 under similar provisions came to be registered at the same Police Station on 17.12.2024. “Ganja” came to be seized from the detenu in this process. The detenu was found to be a “drug offender” under Section 2 (f) of the Act of 1986 and by observing that ill-effects of Ganja were harmful and injurious public health, power conferred by Section 3 (2) of the Act of 1986 came to be exercised. The Collector and District Magistrate was also of the view that the detenu had moved an application for grant of bail in Crime Nos. 243/2024 and 270/2024 which were pending. He apprehended that if the detenu succeeded in obtaining bail, she would continue to engage in illegal activities. The proceedings registered against her under the ordinary law had no deterrent effect and hence it was found necessary to detain her as a last resort in interest of public at large. On this basis, the order of detention came to be passed on 10.03.2025. Approval to the aforesaid order came to be granted under Section 3(3) of the Act of 1986 by the General Administration Department on 15.03.2025. Thereafter on 15.04.2025, the order of detention came to be confirmed.

4. The High Court was of the view that the repeated and well planned actions of the detenu were sufficient to raise the presumption of threat and alarm amongst the general public regarding their health which was the primary criteria for maintaining peace as well as law and order in society. It found that there was no reason to interfere with the subjective satisfaction record by the detaining authority and that the order of detention did not suffer from any irregularity warranting interference. On these findings the High Court declined to interfere with the order of detention.

5. Mr. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that in absence of any material for recording satisfaction that the detenu had acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance o