Preventive detention cannot rely on stale incidents lacking immediate proximity; a legitimate link must support the necessity of detention based on past conduct.

JUDGMENT ;

Mrs. KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J :

1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of habeas corpus by declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, in detaining Sri Jambu Ramesh, S/o. Balaiah vide order dated 27.07.2023 in No.Re:C1/309/M/2023, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. No.1916, dated 25.09.2023, as illegal and unconstitutional.

2. The writ petitioner is wife of the detenue, Sri Jambu Ramesh. The petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 27.07.2023, passed an order of detention under Section 3 (1) & (2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers and Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, (for short "Act No.1 of 1986"), placing the detenue under detention in Central Prison, Cuddapah. The said order of detention was confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. No.1916, dated 25.09.2023, treating the detenue as 'Drug Offender' as defined under Section 3 (1) and 3(2) of the Act 1 of 1986. The following are the cases that have been taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent, while placing the detenue under detention :

3. The petitioner contends that five (5) cases were registered against the detenue under the provisions of Sections 272 and 273 read with 34 IPC, Section 20 (a)(b)(II)(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is stated that in all the 5 cases bails were granted, when the 5th crime was registered on 24.03.2023, the detenue was in judicial custody. It is represented that regular bail was granted in four (4) cases and in one case, the detenue was issued with notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. The petitioner primary contends that there is no proximity between the crimes registered. Following is the detailed chart of the crimes that were registered against the petitioner :

4. Between the registration of the 1st crime and the 2nd crime there is a gap of 6 months, similarly between the 2nd and 3rd crime, there exists a gap of 5 months. The petitioner contends that lack of proximity between the offences, and in the absence of the reasoning of the detaining authority as to why stale incidents were also required to be taken into consideration, the order of detention would be invalid.

1. The 3rd respondent filed his counter-affidavit, stating that the detenue had indulged in five (5) cases. He is a habitual drug offender within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the "Act 1 of 1986". It is further stated that the offences committed are not against an individual, but are against the society, adversely affecting the public at large. It is stated that as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in Doddi Sharadha v. Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad District,