1. Heard Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader assigned by Sri T.Ravi Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, who is the wife of the alleged detenu i.e. Lakhan Singh, S/o.Prakash Singh filed the present writ petition alleging that the detention order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of The Telangana Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser 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 1986 Act’), as approved by the respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.1233 dated 12.09.2025 and consequential confirmation order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The detention order is founded on the alleged involvement of the detenu in three ground cases registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the NDPS Act, 1985’). The first case is Crime No.42 of 2024 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, wherein the detenu was arrested on 17.12.2024 in connection with the alleged possession of 20.5 kilograms of ganja. The detenu was subsequently enlarged on conditional bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.2165 of 2025 by order dated 18.02.2025. The second case is Crime No.32 of 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, wherein the detenu was arrested on 01.08.2025 in connection with the alleged transportation of 25.230 kilograms of ganja. The third case is Crime No.72 of 2025, also registered by Prohibition and Excise Station, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, wherein the detenu was arrested on 01.08.2025 on the allegation of possessing 21.425 kilograms of ganja. The detenu was subsequently granted conditional bail in the said case by this Court in Criminal Petition No.12948 of 2025 by order dated 24.10.2025.

4. Apart from the aforesaid cases, the detaining authority also took into consideration the antecedent criminal history of the detenu, including his alleged involvement in earlier narcotic offences and the fact that he had previously been detained under the provisions of Act 1 of 1986 pursuant to detention order dated 13.12.2021, which was confirmed by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.543 dated 05.03.2022. Though the said detention order was subsequently set aside by this Court in W.P.No.1891 of 2022by order dated28.07.2022, the detaining authority observed that the detenu had once again indulged in similar narcotic offences after his release. Taking into consideration the aforesaid cases, the antecedent criminal history of the detenu and his alleged repeated involvement in offences relating to commercial quantities of ganja, the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu was habitually engaging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, thereby necessitating his preventive detention under Act 1 of 1986.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned detention order has been passed mechanically, without proper application of mind and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the allegations in all the criminal cases relied upon by the detaining authority are false and unsupported by any credible oral or documentary evidence. According to the petitioner, the cases have been registered upon the detenu on the basis of vague allegations, presumptions, assumptions and hearsay evidence, without any material connecting him with the alleged offences of peddling ganja.

6. It is further contended that the detention order is founded only upon three criminal cases registered under the NDPS Act, which are capable of being effectively dealt with under the ordinary criminal law. Learned counsel submits that, even assuming the allegations to be true, they would at best constitute issues relating to "law and order" and not "public order". It is argued that the detaining authority has failed to appreciate the distinction between the two concepts and has not demonstrated as to how the alleged acts of the detenu disturbed the community at large so as to justify invocation of the preventive detention law.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the detenu had been enlarged on bail in the relevant criminal cases and had been scrupulously complying with the conditions imposed by the competent Courts. There is no allegation that the detenu violated any of the bail conditions or involved himself in any fresh offence after his release on bail. Therefore, the apprehension entertained by the detaining authority that the detenu would continue to indulge in similar activities is wholly speculative and cannot form the basis for preventive detention.

8. It is also contended that the detention order has been passed on vague, irrelevant and non-existent grounds without there being any material to establish that the activities of the detenu had affected public order. Learned counsel further submits that there is no material to justify treating the detenu as a "Drug Offender" within the meaning of Act 1 of 1986. It is also pointed out that an earlier preventive detention order passed against the detenu in the year 2021 had already been set aside by this Court in W.P.No.1891 of 2022 and, therefore, reliance upon his antecedents is wholly misconceived.

9. It is further contended that the constitutional safeguard guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been violated, as the Advisory Board allegedly failed to afford the detenu and his family members an effective opportunity of hearing before rendering its opinion. It is therefore prayed to declare the detention order dated 04.09.2025, the Government approval dated 12.09.2025 and the confirmation order dated 29.10.2025, as illegal and the detenu be directed to be released forthwith.

10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1891 of 2022, order dated 310.10.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25901 of 2024, decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana and others ((2023) 9 SCC 587) and Roshini Devi Vs. State of Telangana and others (2026 LawSuit (SC) 42), and contended that basing on the law laid down in various decisions, the detention order passed against the alleged detenu is liable to be set aside.

11. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents supports the impugned detention order and submits that the same has been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of Act 1 of 1986 after due consideration of the entire material placed before the detaining authority. It is submitted that the detenu is a habitual drug offender who has repeatedly indulged in the illegal possession, transportation and sale of commercial quantities of ganja, thereby posing a serious threat to public health and public order.

12. Learned Special Government Pleader contends that the detention order is based on credible, contemporaneous material including the reports of the Government Chemical Examiner confirming that the seized contraband in all the three ground cases was ganja. It is submitted that 20.5 kilograms, 25.230 kilograms and 21.425 kilograms of ganja were respectively seized in Crime Nos.42 of 2024, 32 of 2025 and 72 of 2025, thereby establishing the detenu's continued involvement in organized narcotic trafficking.

13. It is further submitted that the detenu has a long criminal history involving narcotic offences. Though he had earlier been preventively detained in the year 2021 and the said detention order was subsequently quashed by this Court, he once again indulged in similar offences during the years 2024 and 2025. According to the respondents, the repeated involvement of the detenu in offences involving commercial quantities of ganja, even after his release pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, clearly demonstrates his habitual propensity to commit similar offences and justifies invocation of the preventive detention law.

14. The respondents further contend that drug trafficking is not a mere law and order issue but has serious repercussions on public health and public order, particularly affecting innocent members of society and the younger generation by promoting addiction and social disorder. It is therefore submitted that the activities of the detenu transcend ordinary criminality and squarely fall within the ambit of "public order". Reliance is placed upon several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that preventive detention and criminal prosecution operate in distinct fields and that the existence of proceedings under the NDPS Act does not preclude the exercise of powers under the preventive detention law.

15. Learned Special Government Pleader further submits that grant of bail or compliance with bail conditions does not operate against the passing of an order of preventive detention, particularly when the detenu has demonstrated a consistent pattern of indulging in similar offences. It is pointed out that while the detenu had secured bail in Crime No.42 of 2024, he thereafter became involved in Crime Nos.32 and 72 of 2025, thereby indicating that ordinary criminal law had failed to deter him from continuing his prejudicial activities. It is also submitted that the detaining authority was fully conscious of the fact that the detenu was in judicial custody while passing the detention order and having regard to the likelihood of his release on bail and his past conduct, rightly arrived at the subjective satisfaction that preventive detention was necessary.

16. It is further contended that all constitutional and statutory safeguards were properly followed. The Advisory Board, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the detenu as well as his wife and mother, opined that there was sufficient cause for his detention, pursuant to which the Government confirmed the detention order vide G.O.Rt.No.1493 dated 29.10.2025. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, be dismissed.

17. It is also contended that in respect of exercising the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority and the scope of judicial review on such exercise of subjective satisfaction is an exception and not the rule and laced reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharshtra and others Vs. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande ((2008) 3 SCC 613).

18. In support of his contentions, learned Special Government Pleader placed reliance on the decisions in Hardhan Saha Vs. The State of West Bengal and others ((1975) 3 SCC 198), Kamarunnisa Vs. Union of India and another ((1991)1 SCC 128), D.M.Nagaraja Vs. Government of Karnataka and others ((2011) 10 SCC 215), V.Shantha Vs. State of Telangana and others (MANU/AP/0557 2017), Haleem Sadiya Vs. The Commissioner of Police and others (MANU/TL/1578/2022), Tajinder Singh Vs. Union Territory of J&K and others (2023 SCC OnLine J&K 58), Bandaru Govardhan Reddy Vs. Government of India and others (Order dated 14.06.2024 passed in W.P.No.9406 of 2024), Dharavath Laxmi Vs. The State of Telangana and others (Order dated 20.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.2133 of 2025) and Dharavath Laxmi Vs. The State of Telangana and others (Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 01.08.2025 passed in SLA (Crl.) NO.10822/2025), Roshini Devi (Supra).

19. We have extensively heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order and the material placed on record.

20. The detention order shows that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the detenu's involvement in Crime No.42 of 2024, Crime No.32 of 2025 and Crime No.72 of 2025, all relating to offences under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantities of ganja. The authority has also taken note of the fact that the detenu was earlier detained under the 1986 Act and that, even after the earlier detention order was set aside by this Court and after he secured bail in the criminal cases, he allegedly continued to indulge in similar offences. The repeated involvement of the detenu in offences of the same nature cannot be treated as an isolated circumstance.

21. The contention of the petitioner that the allegations are false or that there is no evidence connecting the detenu with the offences cannot be examined in these proceedings. The detention order is supported by FIRs, seizure panchanamas, remand reports, statements of witnesses and officials, and the report of the Government Chemical Examiner confirming that the seized substance was ganja. Whether these materials are sufficient to establish the guilt of the detenu is a matter to be decided by the competent criminal Court during trial. In proceedings challenging a preventive detention order, this Court is concerned only with the existence of relevant material and not with its sufficiency or admissibility.

22. The material placed before the detaining authority shows that the detenu was allegedly involved in possession and transportation of commercial quantities of ganja on more than one occasion. Drug trafficking is not an offence confined to an individual. It has serious consequences on society, particularly on young persons, by promoting addiction, affecting public health and disturbing the normal tempo of life in the community. The menace of narcotic drugs has assumed alarming proportions and poses a serious threat to society at large. Therefore, habitual involvement in trafficking of commercial quantities of narcotic substances cannot be viewed as a mere law and order issue.

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that habitual involvement in narcotic offences has a direct impact on public order. In D.M. Nagaraja(supra), and the Division Bench decisions of this Court in V. Shantha(supra), Haleem Sadiya (supra), and DharavathLaxmi(supra), it has been held that repeated involvement in drug trafficking justifies preventive detention where the activities disclose a continuing threat to public order.

24. The contention that since prosecution under the NDPS Act is pending, preventive detention could not have been invoked cannot be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in HaradhanSaha(supra) held that criminal prosecution and preventive detention operate in different fields. Criminal prosecution punishes a person for an offence already committed, whereas preventive detention is intended to prevent him from committing similar prejudicial acts in future. Therefore, merely because prosecution is pending under the ordinary law, the detaining authority is not precluded from exercising powers under the preventive detention law. Preventive detention is not intended to punish a person for an offence already committed but to prevent him from committing similar prejudicial acts in future.

25. The contention relating to grant of bail also cannot be considered at this point. In Kamarunnisa(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if a person is in judicial custody, an order of preventive detention can be passed provided the detaining authority is aware of such custody, is satisfied that there is a real possibility of his release on bail, and further records its satisfaction that he is likely to indulge in prejudicial activities upon such release.

26. In the present case, the detention order clearly records that the detaining authority was aware that the detenu was in judicial custody in Crime Nos.32 of 2025. The authority also took note of the fact that the detenu had earlier secured bail in Crime No.42 of 2024. Considering the nature of the offences, the stage of the criminal proceedings and the fact that the detenu had previously secured bail, the detaining authority recorded its satisfaction that there existed a real possibility of the detenu being released and indulging in similar prejudicial activities. Significantly, after securing bail in Crime No.42 of 2024, the detenu was again implicated in Crime Nos.32 and 72 of 2025. This recurring conduct furnished a reasonable basis for the detaining authority to arrive at such satisfaction.

27. An order of preventive detention is founded on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Such satisfaction must be based on relevant material having a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved under the Act. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not required to examine the sufficiency of the material or sit in appeal over the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. Interference is warranted only where the subjective satisfaction is shown to be arbitrary, based on no material, or vitiated by non-application of mind or consideration of irrelevant material.

28. In State of Maharashtra(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court does not sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Interference is permissible only where the satisfaction is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, non-application of mind, consideration of irrelevant material or exclusion of relevant material. Likewise, in Roshini Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is not expected to re-appreciate the material as an appellate Court but only to examine whether the decision-making process suffers from any legal infirmity.

29. In the present case, the detention order shows that the detaining authority has considered the nature of the offences, the quantity of contraband seized, the antecedents of the detenu, the earlier preventive detention, the grant of bail, the possibility of his release and the likelihood of his continuing similar activities. We do not find that any irrelevant circumstance has been taken into consideration or that any relevant material has been ignored. Therefore, it cannot be said that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority suffers from non-application of mind.

30. We also do not find any merit in the contention regarding violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The record further discloses that the matter was placed before the Advisory Board within the prescribed period and the Advisory Board, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the detenu in accordance with law, opined that there was sufficient cause for his continued detention. Thereafter, the Government confirmed the detention order. The petitioner has not been able to point out any violation of the mandatory constitutional or statutory safeguards.

31. Having regard to the repeated involvement of the detenu in offences involving commercial quantities of ganja, his antecedent criminal history, the fact that he allegedly continued similar activities despite earlier prosecution, grant of bail and even after the previous detention order was set aside by this Court, we are satisfied that the detaining authority had sufficient and relevant material to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the ordinary criminal law had not deterred the detenu and that preventive detention had become necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

32. Therefore, viewed from angle, the detention order passed by the respondents does not warrant any interference by this Court. We find no illegality or procedural infirmity in the impugned detention order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

33. W.P.No.35084 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. No costs.