Preventive detention orders must rely on relevant, non-stale material; reliance on acquitted cases renders such orders illegal.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner prays for writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that her sister’s son Shaik Jameer, S/o Late Gayaz Basha was illegally detained pursuant to the proceedings in Rc.C1(Magl)/191/2023, dated 24.07.2023 of the 2nd respondent as confirmed in G.O.Rt. No. 1911, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 25.09.2023 by the 1st respondent and therefore the said detention order may be declared as illegal and consequently respondents may be directed to release the detenue.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the 2nd respondent vide order dated 24.07.2023 passed the detention order against Shaik Jameer S/o Late Gayaz Basha having taken into consideration the following 5 cases in which the detenue was involved treating him as “Drug Offender” as defined U/s 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’].

Subsequently the Government have confirmed his detention vide proceedings in G.O.Rt. No. 1911, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 25.09.2023.

Hence the writ petition.

3. 2nd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri Kondreddy Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General for respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Kondreddy Vamsi Krishna would firstly argue that out of 5 cases considered for issuing detention order, in two cases i.e. Cr. No. 155/2014 and Cr. No. 49/2018 which were registered for the offences U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act, 1985, the detenue was acquitted in concerned S.C.Nos.11 of 2014 and S.C. No. 13 of 2018 on 07.11.2016 and 14.02.2022 respectively as per the judgment of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and remaining three cases are concerned, the detenue got regular bail in two cases i.e. Cr. No. 89/2022 registered for the offences U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 and Cr. No. 14/2023 registered for the offences U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985. Regarding the 5th case in Cr. No. 19/2023 registered for the offences U/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985, the detenue was added as an accused No. 13 basing on the confession of the A1 and A2 and no Ganja was seized from the possession of the detenue and the detenue got regular bail on 23.08.2023 i.e. after detention order. Learned counsel further submits that the detention order was passed by the detaining authority treating the detenue as a drug offender to prevent him from indulging in dangerous activities in the future. The detenue will not fall under the said criteria and the order of detention does not have any material that the detenue possessed and transported the Ganja in commercial quantity. He further argued that the detenue was acquitted in two cases i.e. (1) Cr. No. 155/2014 and (2) Cr. No. 49/2018 long back from the date of detention order which were also taken into consideration for ordering preventive detention and thus, those two cases were ended in acquittal long prior to the detention order dated 24.07.2023 and therefore, those two cases do not form a live link to the current activities of the detenue and hence, the detention per se became illegal due to the irrelevant consideration of stale cases.

(b) Secondly learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent authorities hav