Preventive detention orders must be based on recent and relevant conduct of the detenue, demonstrating a clear link to future risks; reliance on stale offences without recorded justification renders such orders invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in RC No.50/2023/C1 dated 30.06.2023, as confirmed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings in G.O. Rt. No.1323, dated 10.07.2023 and G.O. Rt. No.1787, dated 07.09.2023, detaining the detenue, Smt. Valluri Roja, W/o. (late) Ravi Kumar, as illegal and unconstitutional.

2. The petitioner is the sister of the detenue, and she contends that the 3rd respondent vide RC No.50/2023/C1 dated 30.06.2023, passed an order of detention under the provisions of Section 3 (1) and 3(2) read with Section 2 (f) of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offender Goondas Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, (for short "Act 1 of 1986") for indulging in activities in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985. It is stated that the detenue was granted bail in all the cases, by the date of detention. The following are the cases that were taken into consideration while passing the order of the detention :

3. The petitioner contends that a case which was registered in the year 2017, was also taken into consideration while passing the order of detention and contends that the same lacks proximity between the first offence to the date of detention, and between the remaining offences. In the absence of live link between the offences and in the absence of satisfaction being recorded to the effect that the detenue has been regularly indulging herself in commission of such offences, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. The petitioner further contends that out of four (4) cases, the detenue was granted bails in majority of the cases and contends that the sponsoring authority did not place the said bail orders before the detaining authority and as on the date of passing of the detention order the detenue was in judicial custody. The petitioner further contends that in the absence of the satisfaction being recorded, the detention order would not be sustainable. It is further contended by the petitioner that the order of the detention was passed in a mechanical manner on vague, irrelevant and non-existent grounds. It is further submitted that the detenue is tested HIV positive and sought for release by setting-aside the order of detention.

4. The 2nd respondent filed his counter-affidavit stating that the drug offences committed by the detenue would cause widespread danger to public health and create a feeling of insecurity amongst the general public and if the said offences are not hindered, would cause prejudice to the maintenance of public order. Although four cases were registered against the detenue in the past, she did not mend her ways and continued to indulge in commission of similar offences. It is further submitted by the 2nd respondent that as per the public analyst report, the contraband seized would cause widespread damage to public health. With regard to averment that the detenue being HIV patient, it is stated that their office is unaware of the same as no representation has been received in their offi