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 her husband Bonthu Subramanyam, S/o Rambabu, Age: 33 years, R/o Dharmavaram Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Kakinada District, who was detained as per the Detention Order in Rc.No.Mgl1/4/2022, dated 18.04.2022 passed by 2nd respondent under Section 3 (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.1103, dt:13.06.2022.

2. The detention order dated 18.04.2022 was passed by 2nd respondent on the ground that the detenue was involved in following four 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 respondent filed the counter and opposed the writ petition.

5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P. Rajesh Babu and learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General on behalf of respondents.

6. Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for petitioner severely challenged the detention order on the main thrust of argument that out of the four crimes which were taken as a ground for detention, except in one crime, the detenue was not directly involved in three crimes. In other three cases, he was neither present at the scene of offence nor the police arrested him at the spot. However, he was implicated in those three crimes on the alleged identification by the raid party. He further argued that there were no independent mediators in three cases for effecting either seizure or destruction of the contraband. Therefore, the participation of the detenue in three cases is a myth, if not highly doubtful and the truth or otherwise of the complicity of the detenue in those three cases has to be decided only after a full-fledged trial. He would strongly urge that having regard to the nature of the crimes, the general law can sufficiently take care of such cases and hence the Detaining Authority ought not to have passed detention order on the basis of such highly doubtful cases. Learned counsel lamented that the 2nd respondent who is Detaining Authority has not bestowed her attention to the crucial factual and legal aspects in right perspective while passing the detention order. Learned counsel thus prayed to allow the writ petition and set aside the detention order.

7. Refuting the arguments of the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader would argue that the detenue was very much involved in all four crimes. They would show that in some of them detenue was directly arrested at the spot and in some matters though he was present at the spot and preparing ID liquor, he skulked away on seeing the raid party. Therefore, his involvement in all the crimes is writ large. Since he is a habitual offender and deals with illicitly distilled liquor which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to the public health, the 2nd respondent has rightly passed the detention order. He thus prayed to dismi