ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

This Habeas Corpus petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release of his brother Dhanapal @ Jakkayulu, S/o. Baduraiah, aged 36 years, permanent resident of Kurivikuppam, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, who was detained as per the Detention order in Proc.No.REV-CSECOPDL(PRC)/15/2022-MAGL4 dated 15.06.2022 passed by 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) and (2) 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 later confirmed by the 1st respondent as per the proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.1638, dt:10.08.2022.

2. The detention order dated 15.06.2022 was passed by 2nd respondent on the ground that the detenue was involved in following six 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. Hence the writ petition.

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

5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. K. Tulasi Durgamba and learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General on behalf of respondents.

6. Smt. K. Durgamba, learned counsel for petitioner severely challenged the detention order on the main thrust of argument that out of the six crimes, which were taken as a ground for detention, the detenue was not directly involved in most of the offences except one or two. In other four cases, he was neither present at the scene of offence nor the police arrested him at the spot. However, he was implicated in those four crimes on the alleged identification of the raid party or the confession of a co-accused. There were no independent mediators in those cases. Hence, the participation of the detenue in those cases is a myth, if not highly doubtful and the truth or otherwise of the complicity of the detenue in those four cases can be decided only after full-fledged trial. Therefore, the general law can sufficiently take care of such cases. However, the detaining authority ought not to have passed detention order on the basis of highly doubtful cases. Learned counsel lamented that the 2nd respondent who is detaining authority has not bestowed his attention to the crucial factual and legal aspects in right perspective while passing the detention order.

(a) The remaining two cases are concerned, learned counsel would argue, in Cr. No.251/2021 the analyst report would only disclose that the sample is fermented wash and fit for distallation, but it does not specifically state that the sample contains illicitly distilled liquor which is unfit for human consumption. Learned counsel would vehemently argue that unless the contraband seized from an accused is proved to be an illicitly distilled liquor and it is unfit for human consumption and injurious to the public health, the said case cannot be taken into consideration for ordering detention of such accused under the provisions of the Act 1 of 1986. Learned counsel further argued that the 2nd respondent has not taken into considera