ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

In this Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner prays for release of her husband Bathula Bala Guravaiah, S/o Brahmaiah, R/o D.No.12-2-206, 20th Ward, Erukula Colony, Macherla Town, Guntur District who was detained and lodged in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram as per the detention order vide proceedings in Proc.No.719/2021-C1, dated 22.03.2022 of the 2nd respondent/The District Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur under Section 3(2) r/w 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986) [for short, ‘the Act 1 of 1986’] and consequential confirmation order of the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.848, dated 10.05.2022.

2. The 2nd respondent has passed the detention order dated 22.03.2022 on the ground that the detenue was involved in following three cases and thus he is a ‘Bootlegger’ within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act 1 of 1986 and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order.

3. The detention order is challenged in this writ petition on the main ground that the detenue is an innocent person and not committed any of the offences mentioned in the detention order; the cases in which he is involved can be effectively dealt with under the general law and his activities are not prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order; the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind in issuing the detention order, inasmuch as, of the three crimes which were taken as a ground to pass detention order, in Crime No.177/2021 of SEB Station, Macherla, there was no physical presence and participation of the detenue at the time of alleged offence but he was falsely implicated on the basis of alleged confession of co-accused and on the alleged confession of the detenue in a subsequent case. Thus the detention order per se is illegal.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition.

5. Heard arguments of Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General for respondents.

6. While vehemently opposing the detention order, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, firstly argued that of the three crimes which were taken as a ground for detention, the detenue was not directly involved in Crime No.177/2021 of SEB Station, Macherla and the police did not arrest him at the spot. However, he was implicated in that case on the alleged confessional statements of co-accused. Learned counsel thus argued that the participation of the detenue in the said offence is a myth, if not highly doubtful and the said aspect can be decided only after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, the general law can take care of such aspects. However, detention order ought not to have been passed on the basis of such highly doubtful case. Learned counsel would lament that, the 2nd respondent who is the Detaining Authority has not bestowed his attention to these crucial facts in right perspective while passing the detention order. Hence the detention is per se illegal.

a) Secondly, he would argue that the offences which were taken as a ground for detention are all common offences and they can be dealt with under general laws. They are not grave