DATE: 28/10/2025
COURT: High Court of Telangana
BENCH: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and
Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar
FACTS:
The petitioner, daughter of the detenu Smt.
Aruna Bai @ Anguri Bai, filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking her mother’s
release from preventive detention at the Central Prison, Chanchalguda,
Hyderabad. The detention was ordered by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(2)
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 (the Act), and subsequently approved and confirmed by the State
Government. The detention was based on allegations that the detenu was involved
in drug peddling activities in Hyderabad, classifying her as a “drug offender”
under the Act.
The detenu was allegedly involved in three
criminal cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), Crime No. 243/2024 (Prohibition & Excise PS,
Dhoolpet), Crime No. 270/2024 (Prohibition & Excise PS, Dhoolpet), and
Crime No. 42/2024 (Prohibition & Excise PS, Narayanaguda). In Crime No.
243/2024, 2.165 kg of dry ganja was seized from two accused who named the
detenu as their supplier. In Crime No. 270/2024, she was allegedly found in
possession of 1.53 kg of ganja. In Crime No. 42/2024, 20.5 kg of ganja was
seized from several accused who confessed to having purchased it from her.
Based on these cases, the authorities passed the impugned detention order. The
petitioner contended that the detention was illegal since criminal proceedings
under the NDPS Act were already pending, and hence preventive detention under
the Act was unwarranted.
ISSUES:
The key issue in this case was whether the
preventive detention order passed against the detenu, Smt. Aruna Bai @ Anguri
Bai, under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities
Act, 1986, was valid and legally sustainable. The petitioner, her daughter,
contended that since criminal proceedings were already pending against the
detenu under the NDPS Act, the invocation of preventive detention was
unwarranted, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional safeguards under
Article 22. The Court was also required to examine whether the detention order
had been passed with due adherence to procedural requirements and whether there
existed sufficient material to justify the Detaining Authority’s subjective
satisfaction.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court upheld the detention order
dated 10.03.2025 and the subsequent approval and confirmation orders dated
15.03.2025 and 15.04.2025, respectively, rejecting the petitioner’s plea for
the release of the detenu. The Court concluded that there was no illegality,
procedural lapse, or arbitrariness in the detention process and that the
Detaining Authority’s satisfaction was based on sufficient material.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
The Court reasoned that the detenu’s
repeated involvement in drug-related offences established a consistent pattern
of criminal activity adversely affecting public order and health. The Detaining
Authority had considered the detenu’s antecedents and the serious social impact
of ganja peddling before invoking preventive detention. It was noted that
despite previous arrests and bail, the detenu continued to engage in narcotics
trafficking, indicating that ordinary penal provisions under the NDPS Act were ineffective
in preventing her from committing similar offences. The Court emphasized that
preventive detention is a precautionary measure meant to prevent future harm
rather than to punish past acts. The Detaining Authority, after evaluating the
reports, evidence, and the gravity of the detenu’s conduct, was justified in
concluding that her continued freedom posed a serious threat to public health
and societal well-being.
The Court further relied on precedents such
as Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao
Punjabrao Gawande, and Vijay Kumar v. Union of India, which held that
preventive detention can be invoked even when a person is already in custody,
provided the authority is satisfied that the individual’s release would lead to
prejudicial activities. It was observed that the detention order was issued in
strict adherence to the provisions of the 1986 Act and Article 22 of the
Constitution, and that the Advisory Board had independently reviewed and
confirmed the detention within the statutory timeframe. Given the detenu’s
habitual criminality, the seriousness of her offences, and their adverse impact
on youth and public health, the Court concluded that the order served both
preventive and reformative purposes, warranting no interference with the
Detaining Authority’s decision.
ANALYSIS:
The present case underscores the
judiciary’s recognition of the gravity of habitual drug offences and their
adverse impact on public health and order. By upholding the preventive
detention of Smt. Aruna Bai @ Anguri Bai, the Telangana High Court reaffirmed
the State’s authority to employ preventive detention as a tool to curb
recurring criminal activities that threaten societal stability. The Court
emphasized that while punitive measures under the NDPS Act serve to punish
offenders, preventive detention under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous
Activities Act, 1986, operates as a protective mechanism to pre-empt potential
harm. This distinction between punitive and preventive detention was central to
the Court’s reasoning, highlighting that the detenu’s repeated involvement in
ganja peddling demonstrated an ongoing threat to the community that could not
be effectively addressed through ordinary legal processes. The Court’s reliance
on the Detaining Authority’s subjective satisfaction, corroborated by evidence
and advisory review, reflects a deference to administrative discretion when
exercised in good faith and supported by sufficient material.
Moreover, the judgment illustrates the
Court’s balancing of individual liberty with the collective interest of public
health and safety. The decision underscores that preventive detention, though
an exceptional measure, is constitutionally permissible when used to safeguard
society from habitual offenders whose activities endanger the welfare of
others. By invoking precedents such as Haradhan Saha and Bhaurao Punjabrao
Gawande, the Court reinforced that detention can be justified even during the
pendency of criminal proceedings if there is a reasonable apprehension of
continued prejudicial conduct upon release. Importantly, the Court viewed the
detention not merely as a coercive act but as an opportunity for reform and
rehabilitation, aligning its reasoning with the broader constitutional vision
of public welfare under Articles 21 and 47. Thus, the judgment affirms the
legitimacy of preventive detention in combating the narcotics menace while
ensuring procedural compliance and proportionality in its application.
info@adhwaitha.com