(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing to produce Bairagi Naresh, who is now detained in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District before this Hon'ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide Detention orders in G.O.RT.No. 761 dated 25.07.2025 passed by second respondent and confirmation of detention by the Advisory board vide G.O.RT No. 1229 dated 10.10.2025 as illegal and unconstitutional and to pass)
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard Sri Baggi Venkata Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Sri Duggirala Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Keerthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Additional Advocate General for respondents.
2. Perused the material on record.
3. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for release of the detenue namely Bairagi Naresh and set him free after declaring the order of preventive detention vide G.O.Rt.No.761 Revenue (Excise.II) Department, dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government (FAC) under Section 3(1) of Prevention of illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotronic substances Act, 1988 (for short ‘PIT NDPS Act, 1988) as also the order of confirmation vide G.O.Rt.No.1229 Revenue (Excise.II) Department, dated 10.10.2025 as illegal and arbitrary.
4. The order of preventive detention has been passed against the detenue basing on three (3) Criminal Cases. Those cases are as follows:-
| Sl.No. | Crime No. | Offence under Section | Police Station | Case status |
| 1 | Cr.No.4/2021 | u/s.8(c) r/w.20(b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 | Donkarai PS | Under investigation |
| 2 | Cr.No.7/2024 | u/s.8(c) r/w.20(b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 | Mothugudem PS | Under investigation |
| 3 | Cr.No.31/2024 | u/s.8(c) r/w.20(b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 | Maredumilli PS | Under investigation |
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are three (3) Criminal Cases against the detenue and out of those three (3) cases the detenue was allegedly found with contraband in only two (2) cases i.e, in Crime No.07 of 2024 and Crime No.31 of 2024 under Ground Nos.2 and 3. He submitted that in respect to Ground No.1 i.e., in Crime No.04 of 2021, the incident occurred almost 4 years back i.e., in the year 2021 and the same was registered as SC.NDPS.No.120 of 2025 on 10.03.2025 i.e.., much earlier than the order of detention. But the said fact was not disclosed. The order of detention mentions that the said case was under investigation and numbering of charge sheet was awaited by 25.07.2025. So the submission is that the correct material was not disclosed to the detaining authority.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 2nd case i.e., Crime No.07 of 2024 was registered on 28.01.2024 and based on the confession of the co-accused the detenue was arrested on 12.03.2024 and the case is under investigation. With respect to the 3rd case ie., Crime No.31 of 2024, it is submitted that it was registered on 12.03.2024 and it is under investigation. The submission is that on 12.03.2024 at 2.00 PM i.e., as on the date of occurrence of Crime No.31 of 2024, the detenue was already arrested. So there was no question of involvement of the detenue in three (3) criminal cases mentioned in Ground Nos.1 to 3.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that the order of preventive detention is not sustainable on the ground that it has been passed that the detenue was resorting to commit offences frequently without any hesitation for wrongful gain and disturbing peace, public tranquility and spoiling the public order in the vicinity of the villages and that his activities are detrimental to the public safety and security and that his acts are prejudicial to the public order. He submitted that the scope of the Act is only to the extent of illicit trafficking and not to public safety. So the preventive detention order passed under the PIT NDPS Act, 1988 on the said ground is not sustainable. The subjective satisfaction recorded therefore is on irrelevant ground and vitiates order of preventive detention. The learned counsel further submitted that the relevant material with regard to the order of preventive detention was not furnished to the detenue within the prescribed time frame and hence, it detriments right to make effective representation against the detention order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the advisory board has also committed mistake in passing the order of confirmation and failed to arrive at independent subjective satisfaction and the order of confirmation has been passed mechanically on the ground that the activities of detenue were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
9. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the detenue is an illicit trafficker as defined in Section 2(e) of the PIT NDPS Act, 1988. The detaining authority being satisfied subjectively based on the material as also that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health passed the detention order. He submitted that there are three (3) criminal cases against the detenue. The order of detention and the order of confirmation have not been passed mechanically or on extraneous considerations. The quantity of contraband involved in three (3) cases is immense i.e, 75 kgs, 500 Kgs and 15 Kgs of Ganja respectively. All the material documents including bail orders were part of the record and were duly considered. He submitted that the PIT NDPS Act, 1988 specifically aims to prevent illicit trafficking in Narcotic Drugs which is prejudicial to the public health. He submitted that the reference in the order of preventive detention to the detenue disturbing peace and tranquility was merely descriptive of the impact of his activities on the community. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the authority was that the detenue is a illicit trafficker whose activities are prejudicial to the public health. He submitted that in view of Section 6 of the PIT NDPS Act, 1988 an order of preventive detention shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because one or some grounds are invalid for any other reason whatsoever. He further submitted that the detention order was validly passed by the detaining authority and was legally confirmed.
10. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material available on record.
11. So far as the 1st ground of detention i.e, Crime No.04 of 2021 under Section 8 (c) read with 20(b) (ii) (c) of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985 is concerned, it occurred in the year 2021. The order of detention considering the said case has been passed in the year 2025 ie., almost after 4 years. It appears that there is no considerable connection between the incident of the year 2021 and the necessity to keep the detenue in preventive detention based on that ground in the year 2025. The detaining authority though mentioned that the detenue was granted bail on 02.09.2021 but we find that there is no consideration of the bail conditions imposed while granting bail i.e., whether in view of those bail conditions there was any necessity to keep the detenue in preventive detention. The grant of bail has been mentioned only as a fact. Release of the detenue on bail and its impact on passing of the order of preventive detention inspite of the bail conditions finds no consideration. There is also no casual connection between the incident and the detenue being kept in preventive detention, considering the long gap of time from the incident and the date of preventive detention order.
12. There appears to be force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in respect of Ground No.1 a charge sheet was filed and registered as SC.NDPS.No.120 of 2025 on 10.03.2025, whereas the detaining authority has mentioned that the charge sheet has been filed and NSC number is awaited and it is under investigation. So, the complete material that SC.NDPS.No.120 of 2025 was registered prior to the order of detention, was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority.
13. With respect to the 2nd ground of detention, the Crime No.07 of 2024 was also registered on 28.01.2024. The order of detention has been passed on 25.07.2025 i.e., almost after more than 1 ½ year of the incident. We are of the view that under this ground also the casual connection between the incident and the necessity to keep the detenue in detention is snapped by lapse of time. There is also long gap between the 1st criminal case and the 2nd criminal case i.e., of almost 3 years.
14. In the 3rd case, i.e, Crime No.31 of 2023, the bail was granted on 24.09.2024. However, the detention order does not show that the bail order was considered by the detaining authority.
15. The order of preventive detention cannot be sustained on Ground No.1 as there is no live and proximate link for detention on the said ground which occurred in the year 2021. Similarly it cannot be sustained on the 2nd ground in which also the incident occurred in January, 2024 and the order of detention has been passed after more than 1 ½ year. The delay shows that there was no immediate necessity to detain the detenue, otherwise the proceedings would have been immediately initiated. The conditions of grant of bail in 1st ground have not been taken care of. There is simple mention that the bail was granted and in the 2nd ground, the live and proximate link is not established from the order and in the 3rd ground of detention the bail order has not been considered at all.
16 . The detention order records the satisfaction as is evident from Paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 10 of the order. The order has been passed with an object to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner which is prejudicial to the public heath after recording illicit traffick relating activities of the detenue in which it was necessary to detain him under the PIT NDPS Act, 1988. Consequently, on this point we do not find substance in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of detention has been passed with the object to maintain public order which is not the criterion to pass the order under the PIT NDPS Act, 1988. Though the order has been passed on the recorded subjective satisfaction as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the PIT NDPS Act, 1988, but such satisfaction is not based on relevant material but the relevant material effecting the decision, in the form of the bail order has been ignored as discussed in the earlier part of this Judgment.
17. Writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention passed vide G.O.Rt.No.761 Revenue (Excise.II) Department, dated 25.07.2025 by the Principal Secretary to Government (FAC) and also the order of confirmation issued vide G.O.Rt.No.1229, dated 10.10.2025. The detenu by name Sri Bairagi Naresh, shall be released/set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed.