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 Challapalyam Mohan Babu @ Mohan, S/o. Murugaiah, aged 42 years, permanent resident of Chinna Nakkalampalli Village, H/o. Pachikapallam, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, who was detained as per the Detention order in Proc.No.REV-CSECOPDL( PRC)/14/2022-MAGL4 dated 15.06.2022 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.1635, 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 seven 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.

1. Vedurukuppam P.S. Cr.No.65/2022, dt.19.05.2020, u/s 7(B) r/w 8(A) & 8(B) of the A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020

2. Vedurukuppam P.S. Cr.No.23/2022, dt.12.03.2022, u/s 7(B) r/w 8(A) & 8(B) of the A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020

3. Special Enforcement Bureau of Karvetinagaram Cr. No.429/2021, dt.01.11.2021, u/s 7-B r/w 8-B of APP Act 1995.

4. Special Enforcement Bureau of Karvetinagaram Cr. No.40/2021, dt.30.01.2021, u/s 8(e) of APP Act 1995.

5. Special Enforcement Bureau of Karvetinagaram Cr. No.173/2020, dt.11.05.2020, u/s 34(e) of AP Excise Act 1968.

6. Vedurukuppam P.S. Cr.No.149/2020, dt.05.06.2020, u/s 188 IPC & Sec 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

7. Special Enforcement Bureau of Karvetinagaram Cr. No.63/2020, dt.09.03.2020, u/s 34(e) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968

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 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 seven crimes which were taken as a ground for detention, the detenue was not directly involved in most of the offences except one crime. In other six cases, he was neither present at the scene of offence nor the police arrested him at the spot. However, he was implicated in those six crimes on the alleged identification by the raid party or the confession of a co-accused or by the information of some mediators that the ownership of the contraband found at the scene was that of the detenue and others. She further argued that there were no independent mediators in most of the cases for effecting either seizure or destruction of the contraband. Therefore, 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 six cases has to be decided only after a full-fledged trial. She 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 his attention to the crucial factual and legal aspects in right perspective while passing the detention order.

(a) Learned counsel further argued that in Cr.No.40/2021, Cr.No.173/2020 and Cr.No.63/2020 the analyst report would only disclose that the sample is fermented wash and fit for distillation, but the report does not specifically state that the sample contains illicitly distilled liquor which is unfit for human consumption. She would vehemently argue that unle