IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention – Order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation thereof or after discharge or even acquittal and pendency of prosecution is no bar to order of preventive detention.

ORDER

Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.—The petitioner seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus for setting the detenu at liberty and for declaring the detention order vide proceedings No.B6/81/2025/DPEOH dated 10.03.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent, as approved by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.358 dated 15.03.2025 and as confirmed by G.O.Rt.No.479 dated 15.04.2025 as illegal and to set aside the said orders.

2. The petitioner claims to be the daughter of the detenu viz. Smt.Aruna Bai @ Anguri Bai, who is now detained at Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. The impugned detention order has been passed under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticides Offenders, Fertilizer Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground that the detenu was involved in offences of peddling of Ganja, a narcotic drug in the limits of Hyderabad and thereby she is a drug offender.

3. The detenu was involved in (i) Crime No.243 of 2024 dated 16.09.2024, (ii) Crime No.270 of 2024 of Prohibition and Excise P.S., Dhoolpet dated 12.12.2024 and (iii) Crime No.42 of 2024 dated 17.12.2024 of Prohibition and Excise P.S., Narayanaguda under the provisions of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

4. The brief facts leading to the impugned orders are as follows :

(i) With respect to Crime No.243 of 2024, on the allegation of 2.165 Kgs of dry ganja seized from one Mr. Mahender Singh and Sunitha Bai, who have informed the name of the detenu and that they have purchased the said ganja from the detenu. Basing on the said confessional statement, the detenu had been added as an accused in the above said crime.

(ii) With respect to Crime No.270 of 2024 of Prohibition and Excise P.S., Dhoolpet, the allegation is that on 12.02.2024, the police found the detenu with dry ganja of 1.53 kgs; and

(iii) With respect to Crime No.42 of 2024, on 17.12.2024 a crime was registered alleging that the police found dry ganja of 20.5 kgs from one Mr. Lakhan Singh, Inderesh Singh, Shubhan Singh and Aditya Singh, on whose confession that they have purchased ganja from the detenu, Crime No.42 of 2024 was registered.

Basing the above Crimes registered, the impugned detention orders are passed.

5. Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order could not have been passed under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act since legal proceedings have already been initiated under the NDPS Act against the detenu, which are pending investigation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when a preventive detention order is passed and executed, the liberty of the citizen/detenu is taken away without her being subjected to any recourse under any law, and that the preventive detention law cannot be invoked in every case as a matter of course and alternative method to the punitive law. As the purpose of the Act is that the preventive detention can be invoked against a person if and only if her activities are affecting the public order.

7. It is contended that the every crime registered under the specific chapters of the Penal Code or any other Special Act cannot form the basis for arriving at subjective satisfaction and passing the detention orders against the individuals and touching their liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as a matter of course.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the ordinary law of the land was already set into motion to deal with the activities of the detenu and that the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the recourse to norm