ORDER :

1. This Habeas Corpus petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release of her Son Nadigatla Manikanta @ Madhu S/o Venkataramana, Age 24 years R/o Marlava Village, Peddapuram Mandal, Kakinada District, who was detained as per the Detention Order in Ref. No. Magl-1/138/2022, dated 22.10.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(2) r/w Section 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 later confirmed by the 1st respondent as per the proceedings in G.O.Rt. No. 2718, dated 19.12.2022.

2. The detention order dated 22.10.2022 was passed by 2nd respondent on the ground that the detenue was involved in following five 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.V.V. Nagaraju and learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General on behalf of respondents.

6. Sri P.V.V. Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner severely challenged the detention order on the main thrust of argument that out of the five 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 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 or on the alleged 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 three cases has to 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 strength of such highly doubtful cases. Learned counsel lamented that the 2nd respondent who is Detaining Authority has not bestowed attention to the crucial factual and legal aspects in right perspective while passing the detention order:

(a) Learned counsel would further argue that except in Cr. No. 1105/2021, in all remaining crimes the analyst report would only disclose that the sample is fermented wash and fit for distillation, 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 would further submit that the 2nd respondent has not taken into consideration