Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.

1. This writ petition is instituted by the wife of the detenu challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Police on 28.05.2015 preventively detaining her husband by name Sri Hamza Bin Omer @ Zaffer Pehalwan S/o Omer Bin Mohd.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, in exercise of power available to him under Sub Section 2 of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘Act’), passed the order on 28.05.2015 for preventively detaining Sri Hamza Bin Omer @ Zaffer Pehalwan S/o Omer Bin Mohd., aged about 62 years R/o Rahmath Nagar, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad. In the grounds of detention passed on the same day, the Commissioner of Police has referred to 6 different instances of involvement of the accused in one crime or the other, for purpose of recording his subjective satisfaction that the detenu answers the description of ‘goonda’ as defined by Section 2(g) of the Act and that he deserves to be detained to prevent him from indulging in similar acts any further.

3. With a view to prevent the Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers from indulging in dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order, the State Legislature enacted the Act.

4. Section 2 (g) defined the expression ‘Goonda’ in the following words. “goonda’ means a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code.”

5. The expression ‘Goonda’, therefore, attracts men who either by themselves or as a member of a Gang or leader of a Gang habitually commit or abet the commission of offences under Chapter XVI or XVII or Chapter XXII of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short referred to as ‘IPC’).

6. Chapter XVI of the IPC dealt with various offences affecting the human body and Chapter XVII IPC provided for various offences against property, while Chapter XXII IPC dealt with the offences relating to criminal intimidation, insult, annoyance. If one were to go by the detention order, the Commissioner of Police has clearly brought out the activities indulged in regularly by the detenue, which make him fall within the meaning of “Goonda” as defined in the Act. The basis for forming subjective satisfaction by the Commissioner of Police has been indicated in that the detenu was committing one offence or the other contained in Chapter XVI & XXII of IPC repeatedly and hence he has formed the opinion that the detenue was habitually committing or abetting the commission of such offences.

7. The first of the crimes which has been referred in the grounds of detention relates to crime No.86/2011 on the file of Rein Bazar Police Station. It appears that on 25.05.2011 while Sri S.Mohan Kumar, Inspector of Police, South Zone, Task Force along with staff, who were moving in Rehmath Nagar, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad, with a view to apprehend one Sri Moosa, an accused person in connection with crime No.55/2011 booked for offence under Section 302 IPC by Bhavanin Nagar Police Station, found the said accused near about a nala in the locality. When the police made an attempt to get at him, he ran away therefrom and entered the house of the detenu. When the police tried to nab the accused Moosa, the detenu obstructed the police from entering his house and threatened the police with dire consequence at the point of a revolver. Thereafter, the detenu bolted the doors from inside and prevented the police from gaining entry into his house for apprehending Moosa. This act of the detenu, it is now asserted, created terror, panic and insecurity in the minds of the general public especially police personnel. It is stated that the detenu surrender