ORDER :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

This writ petition is filed by brother-in-law of the detenue-Smt. Kalapathi Nithu Bai challenging the order of detention dated 01.10.2021, passed by respondent No.2/Collector & District Magistrate.

2. Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

3. The detention order was passed as a result of registration of three crimes against the detenue.

“First crime viz., Crime No.6 of 2021 was registered on 10.03.2021 on the file of the Prohibition & Excise Station, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District, alleging recovery of 690 grams of Ganja from the house of the detenue. The detenue was arrayed as accused No.3 therein.

Second crime viz., Crime No.24 of 2021 was registered on 01.09.2021 on the file of the Prohibition & Excise Station, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District, alleging that 1.67 kgs of dry ganja was recovered from the residence of the detenue. The detenue was arrayed as accused No.3 therein.

Third crime viz., Crime No.26 of 2021 was registered on 06.09.2021 on the file of the Prohibition & Excise Station, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District, alleging recovery of 580 grams of dry ganja from the house of the detenue. The detenue was arrayed as accused No.1 therein. ”

4. In connection with the above three crimes, the detenue was arrested on 06.09.2021. The detaining authority observed that even though several applications filed to grant bail were dismissed, there is every likelihood of detenue moving fresh bail applications securing bail. It is further observed that in the event of securing bail, it is possible that the detenue would resort to unlawful activities of peddling of ganja, its ill effects on public health, particularly, the youth and its impact on the society. Therefore, respondent No.2 opined that it desirable to preventively detain the detenue.

4.1. According to leaned counsel for petitioner, the order of detention is ex facie illegal as no ganja was recovered from the possession of the detenue and that the detenue was not even present, when the alleged ganja was recovered from a house.

4.2. He would submit that the alleged recovery of Ganja from the house numbers mentioned in the impugned order of detention is in smaller quantities in separate instances, which cannot be termed as commercial quantity and therefore, the alleged offence being a bailable offence, the detention order was illegal.

4.3. He would further contend that it is illegal to refer to involvement of the detenue in crimes registered against her between the years 2017 to 2020. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana and others, (2020) 13 SCC 632, it is not permissible to refer to previous history of crime and the order of detention can be resorted to only on crimes registered proximate to the decision to detain. Even reference to the involvement in crimes itself would vitiate the order of detention as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would submit that this very issue was considered by this Court in a recent decision in Kaushal v. State of Telangana, W.P.No.29162 of 2021 dated 23.02.2022.

4.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the subject crimes were registered suo motu by the excise police and the detenue was implicated based on a confessional statement by the accused. Confession made before the Police is not admissible in law and therefore, based on such confession, registering crimes against the detenue itself being illegal, the detention order is not valid.

4.5. He would submit that as on the date of detention order, all the bail applications were dismissed and no bail application was pending and therefore, resorting to preventive detention, when no bail application was pending, amounts to illegal exercise of power and authority as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.Shantha v. State of Telangana, (2017) 14 SCC 577.

4.6. Learned counsel would further submitted that though bail was gra