Point of Law: A single act or omission cannot be characterized as a habitual act or omission because, the idea of ‘habit' involves an element of persistence and a tendency to repeat the acts or omissions of the same class or kind, if the acts or omission in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them, they cannot be treated as habitual ones.

ORDER :

Shameem Akther, J.

1. Smt. Vankudoth Jani, the petitioner, has filed the present Writ Petition on behalf of her son-Vankudoth Sai Kumar @ Sai, the detenu, challenging the detention order, dated 03.10.2020, passed by the respondent No.3-Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that by relying on a single criminal case registered against the detenu in Crime No.172 of 2020 of Abdullapurmet Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, the respondent No.3-Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, passed the detention order dated 03.10.2020. According to the respondent No.3, the detenu is a 'drug offender' and he along with his associates has been indulging in illegal and highly dangerous activities of peddling of narcotic drugs i.e., ganja in an organized manner among the innocent people in the limits of Rachakonda Commissionerate endangering the lives of youth and innocent people, causing irreparable damage to their body organs including the Central Nervous System and thereby, crippling the mental and physical health of the people addicted to drugs and acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health as well. Hence, this Writ Petition before this Court.

4. Sri V. Raghunath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr.B.Karthik Navayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:

Firstly, that the detenu is a juvenile and as on the date of his detention, he is aged about 16 years 09 months 10 days.

Secondly, that relying only on single case registered against the detenu in the year 2020, the impugned detention order, dated is passed.

Thirdly, the alleged case does not add up to "disturbing the public order". They are confined within the ambit and scope of the word "law and order". Since the offence alleged is under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'), the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the said special law. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws. Hence, the impugned detention order tantamounts to colourable exercise of power.

Fourthly, the detaining authority is not justified in invoking draconian power under the preventive detention laws. The detaining authority has to be extremely careful while passing the detention order. For detention ipso facto adversely affects the fundamental right of personal liberty enjoyed by the people under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Lastly, the detaining authority has not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, while passing the detention order. The detention of a minor is barred by Section 22 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, The Juvenile Justice Act'). Admittedly, the detenu was granted conditional bail by a learned single Judge of this Court, vide order, dated 21.08.2020 passed in Criminal Petition No.3420 of 2020. After release on bail, the detenu has not involved in any crime or criminal activity and he never violated the bail conditions. Therefore, the impugned detention order deserves to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, Sri G. Mallareddy, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents, supported the impugned detention order and submitted that in the confession statement of the detenu, he has stated that he is aged about 19 years. Even in the two bail applications filed by the detenu, he mentioned his age as 19 years. Even if it is presumed that the detenu is a juvenile, the Juvenile Justice Act allows for juveniles in conflict with law in the age group of 16 - 18 involved in heinous offences to be tried as adults. In the single case relied on by the detaining aut