Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 41
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (CRL.) NO.18223 OF 2025)
ROSHINI DEVI APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Leave granted.
1.
2. The appellant who is the daughter of the detenu-
Aruna Bai alias Anguri Bai is aggrieved by the order of
detention dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Collector and
District Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 3(2) of the
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-
Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
Traffic Offenders [Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed
Signature Not Verified
Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders,
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2026.01.09
15:31:04 IST
Reason:
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 1 of 17
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 of 1986). She approached the
High Court of Telangana by preferring Writ Petition
No.12443 of 2025 for challenging the aforesaid order. The
Division Bench of the High Court however refused to
interfere with the order of detention and dismissed the
said writ petition on 28.10.2025. Being aggrieved, the
appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. The grounds of detention as referred to in the order
of detention dated 10.03.2025 indicate consideration of
the criminal history of the detenu. There is reference to
Crime No. 243/ 2024 dated 16.09.2024 registered under
Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (b) of the
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
at the Prohibition and Excise Station Dhoolpet, District
Hyderabad. There is also reference to Crime No.270/2024
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 2 of 17
dated 12.12.2024 registered against the detenu under
similar provisions as in the first crime. The detenu came
to be arrested on 12.12.2024 and while she was in
judicial custody, Crime No.42/2024 under similar
provisions came to be registered at the same Police
Station on 17.12.2024. “Ganja” came to be seized from
the detenu in this process. The detenu was found to be a
“drug offender” under Section 2 (f) of the Act of 1986 and
by observing that ill-effects of Ganja were harmful and
injurious public health, power conferred by Section 3 (2)
of the Act of 1986 came to be exercised. The Collector and
District Magistrate was also of the view that the detenu
had moved an application for grant of bail in Crime Nos.
243/2024 and 270/2024 which were pending. He
apprehended that if the detenu succeeded in obtaining
bail, she would continue to engage in illegal activities.
The proceedings registered against her under the
ordinary law had no deterrent effect and hence it was
found necessary to detain her as a last resort in interest
of public at large. On this basis, the order of detention
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 3 of 17
came to be passed on 10.03.2025. Approval to the
aforesaid order came to be granted under Section 3(3) of
the Act of 1986 by the General Administration
Department on 15.03.2025. Thereafter on 15.04.2025,
the order of detention came to be confirmed.
4. The High Court was of the view that the repeated
and well planned actions of the detenu were sufficient to
raise the presumption of threat and alarm amongst the
general public regarding their health which was the
primary criteria for maintaining peace as well as law and
order in society. It found that there was no reason to
interfere with the subjective satisfaction record by the
detaining authority and that the order of detention did
not suffer from any irregularity warranting interference.
On these findings the High Court declined to interfere
with the order of detention.
5. Mr. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned Senior
Advocate for the appellant submitted that in absence of
any material for recording satisfaction that the detenu
had acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 4 of 17
public order as required by Section 2 (a) of the Act of
1986, the detenu could not have been preventively
detained. Merely because the detenu was found to be a
“drug offender” under Section 2 (f) of the Act of 1986,
there was no justification for passing the order of
detention. The detenu had been enlarged on bail in Crime
No.243 of 2024 and it could not be said that the
conditions imposed while enlarging her were insufficient
to prevent the detenu from committing any further
offence. The order of detention was passed merely as an
alternative to cancellation of bail. It was further
submitted that merely by referring to the previous
criminal history attributed to the detenu, the order of
detention had been passed. In absence of any specific
instance/s indicating the conduct of the detenu to be
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, there was
no basis to direct her detention. Even if it was accepted
that the detenu was involved in the offences as alleged, it
could not be said that the same affected maintenance of
public order. At the highest, the activities could be
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 5 of 17
termed to be prejudicial to the maintenance of law and
order. To substantiate the grounds as urged, reliance was
placed on the decision in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil
1
Nadu . It was thus submitted that in absence of relevant
material on the basis of which subjective satisfaction
could have been recorded by the detaining authority
indicating the acts of the detenu to be prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order, the order of detention was
unsustainable. It was liable to be set aside.
6. Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents supported the order of detention. It was
urged that the detenu was a drug offender within the
meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Act of 1986. Considering
her continuing involvement in dealing with Ganja which
was evident from the crimes registered against her, the
detaining authority was justified in coming to the
conclusion that the detenu’s activities adversely affected
the maintenance of public order. Her continued illegal
acts indicated that the provisions of ordinary law were
insufficient so as to deter her from continuing such illegal
1 2011 INSC 267
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 6 of 17
acts in dealing with narcotic drugs. Her continuous acts
were therefore rightly found to be prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. The learned counsel referred
to the affidavit dated 07.01.2026 filed on behalf of the
Special Officer In-charge, Government of Telangana as
well as the documents filed along with it. The learned
counsel referred to the decision in Pesala Nookaraju Vs.
2
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. to urge that
since the order of detention had been passed after
recording subjective satisfaction that there was likelihood
of breach of public order, no interference with the same
was called for. It was thus submitted that the appeal was
liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the documentary material on record
we are satisfied that the order of preventive detention is
liable to be set aside.
8. The order of detention merely refers to three crimes
registered against the detenu on 16.09.2024, 12.12.2024
and 17.12.2024. It may be noted that pursuant to Crime
2 2023 INSC 734
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 7 of 17
No.270/2024 dated 12.12.2024, the detenu had been
arrested and was in judicial custody when Crime
No.42/2024 dated 17.12.2024 came to be registered. On
the premise that if the detenu was released on bail she
was likely to indulge in serious offences, the detaining
authority proceeded to record that it was satisfied that
cases registered against her under the ordinary law had
no deterrent effect in preventing her prejudicial activities.
Whether the conditions imposed while enlarging the
detenu on bail in the earlier offences were insufficient to
prevent her from indulging in similar offences has not
been adverted to. It would be profitable to refer to the
reason for detention as recorded by the Detaining
Authority in the detention order. The relevant portion
thereof reads as under:
“I am aware that you were arrested on 12-
12-2024 in Crime No.270/2024 dated 12-12-
2024 and 243/2024 dated 16-09-2024 of
Prohibition & Excise Station Dhoolpest and
Crime No.42/2024 dated 17/12/2024
(produced before the Hon’ble Court through
P.T. Warrant) of Excise Station Narayanguda
Hyderabad and in Judicial Custody at
Special Prison for Women Hyderabad at
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 8 of 17
Chenchalguda. Subsequently, you have
moved bail petition before the Hon'ble
Sessions Court in Crime No. 243/2024 and
270/2024 vide Crl M.P. No. 695/2025 and
696/2025 Dt 11-02-2025 and granted bail.
You have also filed bail petition in Crime No.
42/2024 vide Crl. M.P. No. 370/2025 and is
pending before the Hon'ble Sessions Judge
for orders, hence still in judicial custody.
Considering entire material, including the
bail petitions and the orders passed therein,
I apprehend that if you succeed in obtaining
bail and you being released on bail in due
course, keeping in view that on the earlier
occasions during the period 2016 to 2023,
though you were released on bail, but did not
mend your habitual nature of committing
similar offences and again in the recent past
during the year 2024 you have committed (3)
more similar offences, I strongly believe
though you are in judicial custody in
Cr.No.42/2024 and your bail petition is
pending, in case of being granted bail in the
said case and after your release on bail you
would again resort to similar unlawful
activities of peddling of Ganja, and keeping
in view your antecedents and considering the
ill effects of Ganja on the public health and
particularly youth and students and its
impact on the society and having satisfied
that the cases registered against you under
the ordinary law have no deterrent effect in
preventing your prejudicial activities, I
strongly believe that you are not amenable to
ordinary law, unless you are detained by an
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 9 of 17
appropriate order of detention as a last
resort, in the interest of public at large.
It is imperative to prevent you from acting
in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of
Public Order, I feel that recourse to normal
law would involve considerable time and may
not be effective deterrent in preventing you
from indulging in further activities
prejudicial to maintenance of public order in
and around Hyderabad District.”
From the aforesaid observations, it is clear that the
Detaining Authority intended to detain the mother of the
appellant at any cost. Her conduct during the period from
2016 to 2023 has been kept in mind. If the Detaining
Authority was of the view that the detenu had violated
any conditions of bail, steps for cancellation of her liberty
could have been taken. That has not been done here.
9. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of this
Court in Ameena Begum Vs. the State of Telangana
3
and Others , wherein the effect of extraneous factors
weighing in the mind of the Detaining Authority while
passing an order of detention has been considered.
Incidentally, the order of detention therein was also
3 2023 INSC 788
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 10 of 17
passed under the Act of 1986. It has been observed in
paragraphs 49 to 52 as under: -
“……..At the same time, the detaining
authority ought to ensure that the order
does not manifest consideration of
extraneous factors. The detaining authority
must be cautious and circumspect that no
extra or additional word or sentence finds
place in the order of detention, which evinces
the human factor - his mindset of either
acting with personal predilection by invoking
the stringent preventive detention laws to
avoid or oust judicial scrutiny, given the
restrictions of judicial review in such cases,
or as an authority charged with the notion of
overreaching the courts, chagrined and
frustrated by orders granting bail to the
detenu despite stiff opposition raised by the
State and thereby failing in the attempt to
keep the detenu behind bars.
50. What we have expressed above is best
exemplified by the observations of the
Commissioner in the Detention Order under
challenge, which are considered appropriate
to be quoted. Therein, the Commissioner
inter alia stated as follows:
"The proposed detenu and his
associate are notorious offenders
and rowdy sheeters….
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 11 of 17
The proposed detenu was
surrendered before the Hon’ble
Court in Cr.No.35/2023 of
Falaknuma PS and the Hon’ble
Magistrate remanded him to judicial
custody, he moved bail petitions in
Cr.Nos. 18/2023 of Golconda PS and
35/2023 of Falaknuma PS. The
prosecution has filed suitable
counters strongly opposing the grant
of bail to him, but the Hon’ble
Magistrate granted bail to him in
both the cases and ordered for his
release. Subsequently, he was
released from judicial remand on
bail.
As seen from his past criminal
history, background and antecedents
and also his habitual nature of
committing crimes one after the
other and his efforts to come out of
the prison, I strongly believe that if
such a habitual criminal is set free,
his activities would not be safe to the
society and there is an imminent
possibility of his committing similar
offences by violating the bail
conditions in one of the cases, which
would be detrimental to public order,
unless he is preventively detained
from doing so by an appropriate
order of detention.”
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 12 of 17
With respect to the stage of proceedings
in the offences which form its basis, the
Detention Order states that despite being
contested by the State, bail has been granted
to the Detenu in Crimes No. 4 and 5. Insofar
as grant of bail to the Detenu is concerned,
the Commissioner states that:
“I strongly believe that if such a
habitual criminal is set free his
activities would not be safe to the
society and there is an imminent
possibility of his committing similar
offences by violating the bail
conditions in one of the cases, which
would be detrimental to public order,
unless he is preventively detained
from doing so by an appropriate
order of detention.”
51. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid
excerpts from the Detention Order lay bare
the Commissioner’s attempt to transgress his
jurisdiction and to pass an order of
detention, which cannot be construed as an
order validly made under the Act. The quoted
observations are reflective of the intention to
detain the Detenu at any cost without
resorting to due procedure. It is neither the
case of the respondents that the Detenu had
not complied with the terms of the notice
issued under section 41-A of the Cr. PC, nor
has it been alleged that the conditions of bail
had been violated by the Detenu. It is
pertinent to note that in the three criminal
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 13 of 17
proceedings where the Detenu had been
released on bail, no applications for
cancellation of bail had been moved by the
State. In the light of the same, the provisions
of the Act, which is an extraordinary statute,
should not have been resorted to when
ordinary criminal law provided sufficient
means to address the apprehensions leading
to the impugned Detention Order. There may
have existed sufficient grounds to appeal
against the bail orders, but the
circumstances did not warrant the
circumvention of ordinary criminal procedure
to resort to an extraordinary measure of the
law of preventive detention.
52. In Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of
4
Bihar , Hon’ble E.S. Venkataramiah, J. (as
the Chief Justice then was) observed:
32. ...It is well settled that the law of
preventive detention is a hard law
and therefore it should be strictly
construed. Care should be taken
that the liberty of a person is not
jeopardised unless his case falls
squarely within the four corners of
the relevant law. The law of
preventive detention should not be
used merely to clip the wings of an
accused who is involved in a
criminal prosecution. It is not
intended for the purpose of keeping
a man under detention when under
4 (1984) 3 SCC 14
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 14 of 17
ordinary criminal law it may not be
possible to resist the issue of orders
of bail, unless the material available
is such as would satisfy the
requirements of the legal provisions
authorising such detention. When a
person is enlarged on bail by a
competent criminal court, great
caution should be exercised in
scrutinising the validity of an order
of preventive detention which is
based on the very same charge
which is to be tried by the criminal
court.”
(underlining ours, for emphasis)”
Thus, mere apprehension on the part of the
detaining authority that in the event of the detenu being
released on bail, she was likely to indulge in similar
crimes that would be prejudicial to maintenance of public
order would not be a sufficient ground to order her
preventive detention.
10. Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1986 enables the
Government, if it is satisfied that a drug offender ought
to be prevented from acting in any manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order to make an order of
preventive detention. The expression “acting in any
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 15 of 17
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”
has been defined by Section 2(a) of the Act 1986. As per
the Explanation to the said provision, if any of the
activities of the person concerned causes or is
calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a
feeling of insecurity among the general public or a
section thereof or in case of a grave widespread danger
to life or public health is likely to be caused, such power
can be exercised. The order of detention does not
indicate in what manner the maintenance of public
order was either adversely affected or was likely to be
adversely affected so as to detain the detenu. Mere
reproduction of the expressions mentioned in Section
2(a) of the Act of 1986 in the order of detention would
not be sufficient. The detention order ought to indicate
the recording of subjective satisfaction by the detaining
authority in that regard. It is well settled that there is a
fine distinction between “law and order” and “public
order”. Mere registration of three offences by itself would
not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 16 of 17
unless there is material to show that the narcotic drug
dealt with by the detenu was in fact dangerous to public
health under the Act of 1986. This material is found to
be missing in the order of detention.
11. For aforesaid reasons, we find that the order of
detention dated 10.03.2025 to be unsustainable. It is
accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequently, the
impugned judgment dated 28.10.2025 in Writ Petition
No. 1244 of 2025 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court is also quashed. The detenu be released
forthwith if not required in any other proceedings. The
appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
………………………..J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
…..………………………..J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI,
JANUARY 08, 2026.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 17 of 17
2026 INSC 41
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (CRL.) NO.18223 OF 2025)
ROSHINI DEVI APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Leave granted.
1.
2. The appellant who is the daughter of the detenu-
Aruna Bai alias Anguri Bai is aggrieved by the order of
detention dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Collector and
District Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 3(2) of the
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-
Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
Traffic Offenders [Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed
Signature Not Verified
Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders,
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2026.01.09
15:31:04 IST
Reason:
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 1 of 17
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 of 1986). She approached the
High Court of Telangana by preferring Writ Petition
No.12443 of 2025 for challenging the aforesaid order. The
Division Bench of the High Court however refused to
interfere with the order of detention and dismissed the
said writ petition on 28.10.2025. Being aggrieved, the
appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. The grounds of detention as referred to in the order
of detention dated 10.03.2025 indicate consideration of
the criminal history of the detenu. There is reference to
Crime No. 243/ 2024 dated 16.09.2024 registered under
Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (b) of the
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
at the Prohibition and Excise Station Dhoolpet, District
Hyderabad. There is also reference to Crime No.270/2024
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 2 of 17
dated 12.12.2024 registered against the detenu under
similar provisions as in the first crime. The detenu came
to be arrested on 12.12.2024 and while she was in
judicial custody, Crime No.42/2024 under similar
provisions came to be registered at the same Police
Station on 17.12.2024. “Ganja” came to be seized from
the detenu in this process. The detenu was found to be a
“drug offender” under Section 2 (f) of the Act of 1986 and
by observing that ill-effects of Ganja were harmful and
injurious public health, power conferred by Section 3 (2)
of the Act of 1986 came to be exercised. The Collector and
District Magistrate was also of the view that the detenu
had moved an application for grant of bail in Crime Nos.
243/2024 and 270/2024 which were pending. He
apprehended that if the detenu succeeded in obtaining
bail, she would continue to engage in illegal activities.
The proceedings registered against her under the
ordinary law had no deterrent effect and hence it was
found necessary to detain her as a last resort in interest
of public at large. On this basis, the order of detention
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 3 of 17
came to be passed on 10.03.2025. Approval to the
aforesaid order came to be granted under Section 3(3) of
the Act of 1986 by the General Administration
Department on 15.03.2025. Thereafter on 15.04.2025,
the order of detention came to be confirmed.
4. The High Court was of the view that the repeated
and well planned actions of the detenu were sufficient to
raise the presumption of threat and alarm amongst the
general public regarding their health which was the
primary criteria for maintaining peace as well as law and
order in society. It found that there was no reason to
interfere with the subjective satisfaction record by the
detaining authority and that the order of detention did
not suffer from any irregularity warranting interference.
On these findings the High Court declined to interfere
with the order of detention.
5. Mr. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned Senior
Advocate for the appellant submitted that in absence of
any material for recording satisfaction that the detenu
had acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 4 of 17
public order as required by Section 2 (a) of the Act of
1986, the detenu could not have been preventively
detained. Merely because the detenu was found to be a
“drug offender” under Section 2 (f) of the Act of 1986,
there was no justification for passing the order of
detention. The detenu had been enlarged on bail in Crime
No.243 of 2024 and it could not be said that the
conditions imposed while enlarging her were insufficient
to prevent the detenu from committing any further
offence. The order of detention was passed merely as an
alternative to cancellation of bail. It was further
submitted that merely by referring to the previous
criminal history attributed to the detenu, the order of
detention had been passed. In absence of any specific
instance/s indicating the conduct of the detenu to be
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, there was
no basis to direct her detention. Even if it was accepted
that the detenu was involved in the offences as alleged, it
could not be said that the same affected maintenance of
public order. At the highest, the activities could be
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 5 of 17
termed to be prejudicial to the maintenance of law and
order. To substantiate the grounds as urged, reliance was
placed on the decision in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil
1
Nadu . It was thus submitted that in absence of relevant
material on the basis of which subjective satisfaction
could have been recorded by the detaining authority
indicating the acts of the detenu to be prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order, the order of detention was
unsustainable. It was liable to be set aside.
6. Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents supported the order of detention. It was
urged that the detenu was a drug offender within the
meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Act of 1986. Considering
her continuing involvement in dealing with Ganja which
was evident from the crimes registered against her, the
detaining authority was justified in coming to the
conclusion that the detenu’s activities adversely affected
the maintenance of public order. Her continued illegal
acts indicated that the provisions of ordinary law were
insufficient so as to deter her from continuing such illegal
1 2011 INSC 267
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 6 of 17
acts in dealing with narcotic drugs. Her continuous acts
were therefore rightly found to be prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. The learned counsel referred
to the affidavit dated 07.01.2026 filed on behalf of the
Special Officer In-charge, Government of Telangana as
well as the documents filed along with it. The learned
counsel referred to the decision in Pesala Nookaraju Vs.
2
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. to urge that
since the order of detention had been passed after
recording subjective satisfaction that there was likelihood
of breach of public order, no interference with the same
was called for. It was thus submitted that the appeal was
liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the documentary material on record
we are satisfied that the order of preventive detention is
liable to be set aside.
8. The order of detention merely refers to three crimes
registered against the detenu on 16.09.2024, 12.12.2024
and 17.12.2024. It may be noted that pursuant to Crime
2 2023 INSC 734
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 7 of 17
No.270/2024 dated 12.12.2024, the detenu had been
arrested and was in judicial custody when Crime
No.42/2024 dated 17.12.2024 came to be registered. On
the premise that if the detenu was released on bail she
was likely to indulge in serious offences, the detaining
authority proceeded to record that it was satisfied that
cases registered against her under the ordinary law had
no deterrent effect in preventing her prejudicial activities.
Whether the conditions imposed while enlarging the
detenu on bail in the earlier offences were insufficient to
prevent her from indulging in similar offences has not
been adverted to. It would be profitable to refer to the
reason for detention as recorded by the Detaining
Authority in the detention order. The relevant portion
thereof reads as under:
“I am aware that you were arrested on 12-
12-2024 in Crime No.270/2024 dated 12-12-
2024 and 243/2024 dated 16-09-2024 of
Prohibition & Excise Station Dhoolpest and
Crime No.42/2024 dated 17/12/2024
(produced before the Hon’ble Court through
P.T. Warrant) of Excise Station Narayanguda
Hyderabad and in Judicial Custody at
Special Prison for Women Hyderabad at
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 8 of 17
Chenchalguda. Subsequently, you have
moved bail petition before the Hon'ble
Sessions Court in Crime No. 243/2024 and
270/2024 vide Crl M.P. No. 695/2025 and
696/2025 Dt 11-02-2025 and granted bail.
You have also filed bail petition in Crime No.
42/2024 vide Crl. M.P. No. 370/2025 and is
pending before the Hon'ble Sessions Judge
for orders, hence still in judicial custody.
Considering entire material, including the
bail petitions and the orders passed therein,
I apprehend that if you succeed in obtaining
bail and you being released on bail in due
course, keeping in view that on the earlier
occasions during the period 2016 to 2023,
though you were released on bail, but did not
mend your habitual nature of committing
similar offences and again in the recent past
during the year 2024 you have committed (3)
more similar offences, I strongly believe
though you are in judicial custody in
Cr.No.42/2024 and your bail petition is
pending, in case of being granted bail in the
said case and after your release on bail you
would again resort to similar unlawful
activities of peddling of Ganja, and keeping
in view your antecedents and considering the
ill effects of Ganja on the public health and
particularly youth and students and its
impact on the society and having satisfied
that the cases registered against you under
the ordinary law have no deterrent effect in
preventing your prejudicial activities, I
strongly believe that you are not amenable to
ordinary law, unless you are detained by an
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 9 of 17
appropriate order of detention as a last
resort, in the interest of public at large.
It is imperative to prevent you from acting
in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of
Public Order, I feel that recourse to normal
law would involve considerable time and may
not be effective deterrent in preventing you
from indulging in further activities
prejudicial to maintenance of public order in
and around Hyderabad District.”
From the aforesaid observations, it is clear that the
Detaining Authority intended to detain the mother of the
appellant at any cost. Her conduct during the period from
2016 to 2023 has been kept in mind. If the Detaining
Authority was of the view that the detenu had violated
any conditions of bail, steps for cancellation of her liberty
could have been taken. That has not been done here.
9. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of this
Court in Ameena Begum Vs. the State of Telangana
3
and Others , wherein the effect of extraneous factors
weighing in the mind of the Detaining Authority while
passing an order of detention has been considered.
Incidentally, the order of detention therein was also
3 2023 INSC 788
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 10 of 17
passed under the Act of 1986. It has been observed in
paragraphs 49 to 52 as under: -
“……..At the same time, the detaining
authority ought to ensure that the order
does not manifest consideration of
extraneous factors. The detaining authority
must be cautious and circumspect that no
extra or additional word or sentence finds
place in the order of detention, which evinces
the human factor - his mindset of either
acting with personal predilection by invoking
the stringent preventive detention laws to
avoid or oust judicial scrutiny, given the
restrictions of judicial review in such cases,
or as an authority charged with the notion of
overreaching the courts, chagrined and
frustrated by orders granting bail to the
detenu despite stiff opposition raised by the
State and thereby failing in the attempt to
keep the detenu behind bars.
50. What we have expressed above is best
exemplified by the observations of the
Commissioner in the Detention Order under
challenge, which are considered appropriate
to be quoted. Therein, the Commissioner
inter alia stated as follows:
"The proposed detenu and his
associate are notorious offenders
and rowdy sheeters….
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 11 of 17
The proposed detenu was
surrendered before the Hon’ble
Court in Cr.No.35/2023 of
Falaknuma PS and the Hon’ble
Magistrate remanded him to judicial
custody, he moved bail petitions in
Cr.Nos. 18/2023 of Golconda PS and
35/2023 of Falaknuma PS. The
prosecution has filed suitable
counters strongly opposing the grant
of bail to him, but the Hon’ble
Magistrate granted bail to him in
both the cases and ordered for his
release. Subsequently, he was
released from judicial remand on
bail.
As seen from his past criminal
history, background and antecedents
and also his habitual nature of
committing crimes one after the
other and his efforts to come out of
the prison, I strongly believe that if
such a habitual criminal is set free,
his activities would not be safe to the
society and there is an imminent
possibility of his committing similar
offences by violating the bail
conditions in one of the cases, which
would be detrimental to public order,
unless he is preventively detained
from doing so by an appropriate
order of detention.”
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 12 of 17
With respect to the stage of proceedings
in the offences which form its basis, the
Detention Order states that despite being
contested by the State, bail has been granted
to the Detenu in Crimes No. 4 and 5. Insofar
as grant of bail to the Detenu is concerned,
the Commissioner states that:
“I strongly believe that if such a
habitual criminal is set free his
activities would not be safe to the
society and there is an imminent
possibility of his committing similar
offences by violating the bail
conditions in one of the cases, which
would be detrimental to public order,
unless he is preventively detained
from doing so by an appropriate
order of detention.”
51. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid
excerpts from the Detention Order lay bare
the Commissioner’s attempt to transgress his
jurisdiction and to pass an order of
detention, which cannot be construed as an
order validly made under the Act. The quoted
observations are reflective of the intention to
detain the Detenu at any cost without
resorting to due procedure. It is neither the
case of the respondents that the Detenu had
not complied with the terms of the notice
issued under section 41-A of the Cr. PC, nor
has it been alleged that the conditions of bail
had been violated by the Detenu. It is
pertinent to note that in the three criminal
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 13 of 17
proceedings where the Detenu had been
released on bail, no applications for
cancellation of bail had been moved by the
State. In the light of the same, the provisions
of the Act, which is an extraordinary statute,
should not have been resorted to when
ordinary criminal law provided sufficient
means to address the apprehensions leading
to the impugned Detention Order. There may
have existed sufficient grounds to appeal
against the bail orders, but the
circumstances did not warrant the
circumvention of ordinary criminal procedure
to resort to an extraordinary measure of the
law of preventive detention.
52. In Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of
4
Bihar , Hon’ble E.S. Venkataramiah, J. (as
the Chief Justice then was) observed:
32. ...It is well settled that the law of
preventive detention is a hard law
and therefore it should be strictly
construed. Care should be taken
that the liberty of a person is not
jeopardised unless his case falls
squarely within the four corners of
the relevant law. The law of
preventive detention should not be
used merely to clip the wings of an
accused who is involved in a
criminal prosecution. It is not
intended for the purpose of keeping
a man under detention when under
4 (1984) 3 SCC 14
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 14 of 17
ordinary criminal law it may not be
possible to resist the issue of orders
of bail, unless the material available
is such as would satisfy the
requirements of the legal provisions
authorising such detention. When a
person is enlarged on bail by a
competent criminal court, great
caution should be exercised in
scrutinising the validity of an order
of preventive detention which is
based on the very same charge
which is to be tried by the criminal
court.”
(underlining ours, for emphasis)”
Thus, mere apprehension on the part of the
detaining authority that in the event of the detenu being
released on bail, she was likely to indulge in similar
crimes that would be prejudicial to maintenance of public
order would not be a sufficient ground to order her
preventive detention.
10. Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1986 enables the
Government, if it is satisfied that a drug offender ought
to be prevented from acting in any manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order to make an order of
preventive detention. The expression “acting in any
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 15 of 17
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”
has been defined by Section 2(a) of the Act 1986. As per
the Explanation to the said provision, if any of the
activities of the person concerned causes or is
calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a
feeling of insecurity among the general public or a
section thereof or in case of a grave widespread danger
to life or public health is likely to be caused, such power
can be exercised. The order of detention does not
indicate in what manner the maintenance of public
order was either adversely affected or was likely to be
adversely affected so as to detain the detenu. Mere
reproduction of the expressions mentioned in Section
2(a) of the Act of 1986 in the order of detention would
not be sufficient. The detention order ought to indicate
the recording of subjective satisfaction by the detaining
authority in that regard. It is well settled that there is a
fine distinction between “law and order” and “public
order”. Mere registration of three offences by itself would
not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 16 of 17
unless there is material to show that the narcotic drug
dealt with by the detenu was in fact dangerous to public
health under the Act of 1986. This material is found to
be missing in the order of detention.
11. For aforesaid reasons, we find that the order of
detention dated 10.03.2025 to be unsustainable. It is
accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequently, the
impugned judgment dated 28.10.2025 in Writ Petition
No. 1244 of 2025 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court is also quashed. The detenu be released
forthwith if not required in any other proceedings. The
appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
………………………..J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
…..………………………..J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI,
JANUARY 08, 2026.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 18223 of 2025
Page 17 of 17