The repeated drug offending activities and the inadequacy of bail to prevent the detenu from indulging in dangerous drug offences justified the preventive detention.

ORDER :

1. This Habeas Corpus petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release of his mother Smt. Sankuranthri Ramanjamma @ Anjamma, W/o China Brahmaiah (Late), Age 66 years, R/o Adigoppala (V), Durgi (M), Palnadu District who was detained as per the Detention Order in Proc. No. 65/2023-C1, dated 21.06.2023 passed by 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) and (2) r/w 2(f) 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. 1296, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 02.07.2023.

2. The detention order dated 21.06.2023 was passed by 2nd respondent on the ground that the detenu was involved in following 3 cases and thus she is a ‘Drug Offender’ within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act 1 of 1986 and her activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order:

3. The detention order is challenged in this writ petition on the grounds that the detenu was on bail in all the crimes which fact was not taken into consideration while detaining her and further, those cases can be effectively dealt with under the general law and his activities are not prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. It is further contended that there was no proximity or nexus between the 3 cases to order detention.

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

5. Heard arguments of Sri A. Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General for respondents.

6. While severely fulminating the detention order, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A. Venkata Durga Rao, firstly argued that in all the 3 crimes which were taken as a ground for detention, she was granted bail even prior to the detention order, which indicates that the jurisdictional Court on a prima facie opinion that the detenu did not commit offence, granted her bail in all the cases. In that view, duty is cast on the Sponsoring Authority to place before the 2nd respondent not only the material relating to the aforesaid 3 crimes but also the bail applications and bail orders for the consideration and satisfaction of the Detaining Authority to the effect that while at large on bail, there is a likelihood of detenu’s repeating similar offences and acting prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Learned counsel would strenuously argue that on such satisfaction only the Detaining Authority shall pass detention order by giving cogent reasons. However no such reasons, muchless, cogent reasons were given by Detaining Authority. Due to such violation, the learned counsel would emphasize, the detention order became illegal.

7. Secondly, he argued that the crimes in which the detenu was involved and which were taken as a ground for detention are all not grievous offences and they can be dealt with under the general laws. Further there is no nexus or proximity among the 3 cases relied upon by the Detaining Authority to order detention. Therefore, the activities of the detenu cannot be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and as such the detention order is illegal and unjust. He would argue that when general laws are sufficient to deal with the offences, the preventive detention shall not be resorte