Manufacturing and selling illicit liquor is considered prejudicial to public order, justifying preventive detention under the A.P. Prohibition Act.

ORDER :

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

Challenging the legal validity of the order of preventive detention dated 12.08.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent - Collector & District Magistrate, Eluru District, against the husband of the petitioner, by name Vaditya Ramadasu (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenu’), which, in turn, was confirmed by the State as per G.O.Rt.No.2002, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 29.10.2025, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. M.P.V.N.V. Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief overview of the facts leading to the passing of the impugned order of preventive detention against the detenu may be stated as follows:

(i) About six crimes were registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under the A.P. Prohibition Act. All those cases were registered against him on the ground that he has been indulging in the manufacture and sale of illicitly distilled liquor, which is injurious to the health and life of the public. The petitioner was enlarged on bail in all the said crimes. In some crimes, he was enlarged on regular bail after his arrest and in some crimes, anticipatory bail was granted to him. During the course of investigation of the said crimes, samples of the liquor that was found to be in possession of the detenu at the time of his arrest in the crimes were sent by the police to the chemical analyst for examination. The chemical analyst, who examined the said samples of liquor, found that it is illicitly distilled liquor and it is unfit for human consumption and injurious to public health. The test to which the liquor was subjected to arrive at an opinion that it is illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption and injurious to public health yielded positive result, as ethyl alcohol, fusel oil and allied impurities are found in the said liquor.

(ii) Therefore, considering the conduct of the detenu in repeatedly indulging in commission of the said offences which are injurious to the health and life of the public, the sponsoring authority was of the opinion that the detenu has to be detained preventively in order to prevent him from committing similar offences in future, as his acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, he has placed his report before the 2^nd respondent – detaining authority along with the orders of bail and other relevant material to pass an order of preventive detention against the detenu.

(iii) The 2^nd respondent has considered the material placed before him by the sponsoring authority, including the orders of bail, and after recording his subjective satisfaction that the material placed before him revealed that the detenu has been indulging in bootlegging activities and that the detenu is habituated to commit the offences relating to manufacture and sale of illicitly distilled liquor, which is unfit for human consumption and which is injurious to public health, was of the opinion that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and an order of preventive detention is required to be passed against him to prevent him from committing the similar nature of offences in future in the larger interest of public. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent has passed the impugned order of preventive detention dated 12.08.2025 against the detenu. The State, in turn, after considering the order of preventive dentition passed by the 2^nd respondent, has confirmed the said order of preventive detention as per G.O.Rt.No.2002, General Administrat