The court clarified that a valid order of preventive detention must solely rely on relevant offences fitting the defined categorization, and reliance on irrelevant offences invalidates such orders.

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J :

1. This writ petition is filed for issue of habeas corpus for production of the detenue, Sri Kolapari Srinubabu, before the Court, and sought for release of the detenue by declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 14.09.2023 vide REV02-GSTOLWOD/46/2023-MAG-CCLA, as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O. Rt. No.2231 General Administration (Law and Order) Department, dated 10.11.2023, as illegal and unconstitutional.

2. The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenue. It is stated that the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 14.09.2023, passed an order of detention against the detenue detaining him in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, treating the detenue as "drug offender" within the meaning of 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"). It is stated that following offences were taken into consideration while passing an order of detention :

3. It is contended that in the 1st case, out of the aforesaid four (4) cases, the detenue was granted bail and the sponsoring authority deliberately suppressed the information relating to the grant of bail and that the detaining authority did not even furnished the bail orders to the detenue enabling him to submit an effective representation before advisory board. It is further contended that as on the date of passing of the detention order, the detenue was in judicial custody in connection with Cr.No.175/2023, and the said factum was not taken into consideration while recording the satisfaction about the likely-hood of the detenue being released on bail and the probability of, committing further offences upon such release. It is further stated that there is no live link between the offences inter se, inasmuch as out of four (4) offences, the 1st offence was alleged to have committed in the year 2016 and the 2nd offence was reported to have committed in the year 2019 and the 3rd offence was registered in the year 2023. It is stated that there is a large gap between each one of offence and the detaining authority failed to record any satisfaction as to which of the alleged offences prompted the authority to come to a satisfaction that there is every possibility that the detenue would indulge in commission of further offences. The petitioner further contends that out of the four (4) offences that had been taking into consideration by the detaining authority, the 3rd offence in Cr.No.15/2023, was registered under the provisions of under Sections 3 89, 419, 120(b) IPC and Section 2 5 IA Act. He contends that the said offence would not fall under the definition of the drug offender and the detaining authority while categorizing the detenue as a "drug offender" within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of Act No.1 of 1986, has taken into consideration, the said irrelevant factors also into consideration, thereby rendering the order of detention invalid.

4. The counter-affidavit on behalf of 2nd respondent was filed a