Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of detention dated 08.09.2025, whereby the husband of the writ petitioner, Muddangula Aditya, was detained under the provisions 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’).

2. The detenu was classified as an ‘insecticide offender’ under section 2(m) of the 1986 Act. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is illegal, as the grounds of detention do not disclose any disturbance to public order.

3. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the grounds of detention disclose that the detenu was involved in only four cases, none of which satisfied the requirements of section 2(a) of the 1986 Act read with the Explanation thereto. The submission of counsel, in essence, is that the offences, at most, raise a question of law and order but do not affect public order. Counsel submits that there is no material before the Detaining Authority to show any threat or danger to public order and that the impugned order affects the life and liberty of the detenu under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that there was no material to show that the detenu would commit similar offences after being released on bail. Counsel further submits that the impugned order suffers from procedural violations and that the detenu is not a habitual offender.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/State defends the impugned order and places reliance upon the four crimes with which the detenu was charged. The Special Government Pleader relies upon the statements of the witnesses and the insecticide/chemical analysis reports which confirmed that the active ingredients in the respective chemicals were ‘misbranded’ and ‘ineffective’. The Special Government Pleader also relies upon the confessions obtained from the detenu, his associates and agents to establish the fact that the detenu sold spurious insecticides to various traders.

5. We have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considered the material on record, with particular emphasis on the grounds disclosed in the impugned detention order dated 08.09.2025.

6. The impugned order states that the detenu had been indulging in clandestine activities including procuring fake pesticides from the State of Uttar Pradesh, duplicating pesticides bearing the brands of different companies and supplying the same to innocent farmers through his agents within the limits of the Warangal Police Commissionerate and acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The Impugned Order and the Grounds of Detention

7. The impugned order refers to complaints made by Agricultural Officers and registration of cases against the detenu and his associates vide four crimes, namely, Crime Nos.77/2025, 112/2025, 158/2025 and 237/2025. The impugned order further states that, apart from these four crimes, the detenu was earlier involved in Crime No.831/2024 under The Insecticides Act, 1968 (‘the Insecticides Act’) and The Trade Marks Act, 1999, outside the local jurisdiction of Warangal. However, the said crime only referred to as part of the antecedent criminal history and background of the detenu as it was not committed within the local jurisdiction of Warangal.

8. The modus operandi of the detenu and the details of the four crimes have been set out in the Grounds of Detention forming part of the impugned order. The Detaining Authority states that the detenu, in conspiracy with his associates, procured fake pesticides at cheaper rates from Uttar Pradesh and sold them to farmers through his agents. The fake pesticides, devoid of the requisite protective efficacy to crops, consequently caused gullible farmers to sustain substantial losses.

The Four Crimes forming the Basis of the Detention Order

9. The Grounds individually deal with the four crimes allegedly committed by the detenu, which are as follows.

               (i) Crime No.77/2025:

               Under section 318(4) read with section 35 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), section 64 of The Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Copyright Act’) and section 3(k) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, which relate to offences of cheating, possession of infringing copies and misbranding of insecticides. Under this crime, the detenu, Aditya, in collusion with one Bhaskar Reddy, was fraudulently duplicating the Pexalon insecticide under the company’s name (Corteva Agriscience) and selling counterfeit products to farmers for illegal profits. It was also discovered that the detenu was engaged in selling counterfeit ‘Council Active’: herbicide of Bayer Company. Bhaskar Reddy was apprehended on 03.03.2025 while transporting counterfeit products bearing the name of two companies i.e., Corteva Agriscience and Bayer. During the investigation, a witness, Akula Jagan of Bayer Company, was examined. Bhaskar Reddy was also examined and allegedly confessed that he was working under Aditya (the detenu) and was collecting money from villages in Warangal District for supplying the counterfeit insecticides under the instructions of Aditya. Bhaskar Reddy showed the stock of insecticides and herbicides carried by him for sale. The detenu was apprehended on 05.03.2025 based on information received from Bhaskar Reddy. The detenu allegedly confessed to committing the offence and further stated that he had hatched a plan to earn quick money by selling counterfeit pesticides. A list of counterfeit pesticides seized from the possession of the detenu also forms part of the Grounds. The samples seized from the detenu were forwarded to the Insecticide Analyst/Agricultural Officer, Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad. The Report of the Insecticide Analyst dated 10.04.2025 stated that the samples were ‘misbranded’. The detenu was thereafter produced for remand before the Magistrate.

               (ii) Crime No.112/2025:

               Under sections 318(4), 336(3), 350(1) read with section 3(5) of the BNS, section 29(1)(a) and (3) of the Insecticides Act, section 3(1) of The Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and section 7 of The Seeds Act, 1966 (‘the Seeds Act’), relates to offences concerning cheating, forgery, making a false mark on any receptacle containing goods, the prohibition against a person carrying on the business of selling or supplying seeds of any notified kind or variety. Under this crime, the Authority received a complaint from one Nelakurthi Ravinder, Mandal Agricultural Officer, stating that on 21.03.2025 he had received reliable information regarding the illegal sale of fake and expired pesticides by one Erukula Veda Prakash. The Agricultural Officer proceeded to the location and found four individuals with carton boxes containing pesticides. The four individuals/accused allegedly confessed that the boxes contained fake and expired pesticides. The fake pesticides were seized under a Panchanama. The other offenders were apprehended based on the statements of the accused persons. One of the accused confessed that they used to purchase fake pesticides from the detenu (Aditya) at Hyderabad and supply the same to other accused persons. The confessional statement was made on 28.03.2025, on the basis of which, the detenu was apprehended by the Police on 28.03.2025. On interrogation, the detenu allegedly confessed that he had committed the offence in conspiracy with his associates, who procured fake pesticides from an unknown person in Uttar Pradesh, duplicated pesticides of different brands and thereafter supplied them to farmers in Warangal District through their agents, namely, one Bhaskar Reddy and Nuka Rajesh. The seized samples were sent to the Insecticide Analyst, who, in the Report dated 10.04.2025, stated that the samples were ‘misbranded’, as they failed to conform to the relevant Manufacturer’s Method for testing the active ingredient.

               (iii) Crime No.158/2025:

               Under sections 318(4), 350(1) of the BNS, Rule 10A of The Insecticides Rules, 1971, sections 29(1)(a), 29(3) of The Insecticides Act, 1968 and section 7 of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955: The Parkal Police Station received a written complaint on 03.06.2025 stating that the complainant, who was working as Mandal Agricultural Officer of Parkal, had received information on 03.06.2025 that spurious seeds were being sold by the owner of M/s. Sri Raja Rajeshwari Fertilizer Shop, Nagaram Village. The Agricultural Officer found that the shop owner was out of station. No spurious seeds were found in the shop. However, three carton boxes containing pesticides were found in the house of the shop owner/accused, Tirupathi. The details of the contents found in the three boxes are tabulated in the Grounds. The complainant seized the expired pesticides from the house of Tirupathi and also found that the shop owner had stocked the expired pesticides without bills. While the investigation was in progress, the Authorities received information of the whereabouts of the detenu, Aditya and his associates on 05.06.2025 and were apprehended by the Police. On interrogation, the detenu allegedly confessed that he had committed the offence along with his associates and stated that he, along with his associate Jaldeep Gautham, had hatched a plan to manufacture spurious seeds and pesticides and sell them through their agents to fertilizer/seed shops in the villages. The detenu allegedly confessed that he had supplied expired and fake pesticides to Machaboina Thirupathi for sale to farmers. On the same day, i.e., 05.06.2025, based on the confession of the detenu, the Police seized material from his possession under a Panchanama in the presence of mediators. Further, the detenu’s associate, Annam Kumaraswamy, confessed that the detenu sold spurious seeds and fake pesticides in his village, Chelpur. The Police seized further quantities of seeds and insecticides based on the confession of A. Kumaraswamy. The detenu and his associates led the Police to J. Gautham, who produced a large quantity of spurious insecticides and seeds. The Grounds list the spurious articles seized from J. Gautham, amounting to a total value of Rs.53,55,554/-. Further, samples seized from the detenu and his associates on 03.06.2025 were sent for analysis and were declared ‘misbranded’ in the Reports dated 16.06.2025, 18.06.2025 and 19.06.2025.

               (iv) Crime No.237/2025:

               Under section 318 of the BNS and section 3(k) of the Insecticides Act relates to offences of cheating and misbranding of pesticides. On 31.05.2025, the complainant, Nelakurthi Ravinder, Agricultural Officer, conducted an inspection of fertilizer and pesticide shops and a raid at the residence of Erukula Veda Prakash, pursuant to a Report stating that expired and fake pesticides were being sold and supplied by the accused. Upon inspection, certain articles and samples were taken to the laboratory for testing. The test disclosed that the products were expired. Veda Prakash was apprehended on 16.06.2025 and upon interrogation allegedly confessed that he had committed the offence along with the detenu and other associates. Veda Prakash also confessed that he had purchased the fake/expired pesticides from the detenu’s associate, Nuka Rajesh, who, in turn, had procured the same from the detenu. On interrogation, N. Rajesh allegedly confessed that he had purchased fake/expired pesticides from the detenu and supplied them to Veda Prakash. The detenu was apprehended on 02.09.2025.

10. The Grounds of detention relied upon for justifying the impugned order are specific and relate to the four crimes committed by the detenu. The Grounds of detention also contain the evidence linking the detenu to the crimes, with reference to and reliance on the Expert Reports stating that the seized articles were ‘misbranded’ products and the confessional statements of the detenu and his associates.

11. The Grounds further disclose that the detenu was arrested on 03.03.2025 in relation to Crime No.77/2025 and was released on bail on 06.03.2025 vide Crl.M.P.No.24/2025. The detenu was also arrested in connection with Crime No.158/2025 and was released on 06.06.2025 after furnishing a personal bond and sureties. The detenu was remanded to judicial custody on 02.09.2025 but was released on bail on 03.09.2025 despite the Police strongly opposing the grant of bail.

12. The Grounds conclude that, despite being released on bail in Crime No.77/2025, the detenu committed three similar offences under Crime Nos.112/2025, 158/2025 and 237/2025, whereby the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The Detaining Authority concludes that there was a strong likelihood that the detenu would repeat the offences on being granted bail which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Detaining Authority also concludes that the detenu is a ‘habitual offender’ and has knowingly and intentionally committed the crimes against innocent farmers causing financial loss to them.

The Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Offenders Act, 1986 and The Insecticides Act, 1968

13. Section 2(m) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, defines an ‘insecticide offender’ as a person who manufactures, stocks, sells or distributes misbranded insecticides, or does anything in contravention of any of the provisions of The Insecticides Act, 1968, or punishable under section 420 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860, or who abets the commission of such acts/offences. Hence, section 2(m), under which the detenu was detained, requires sale or distribution of ‘misbranded insecticides’. The word ‘misbranded’ is found in section 3(k) of the Insecticides Act.

14. Section 2(m) of the 1986 Act, defining an ‘insecticide offender’, also includes anything done in contravention of any of the provisions of The Insecticides Act, 1968.

15. Section 3(k) of the Insecticides Act stipulates eight instances in which an insecticide may be considered misbranded including: sub-clause (i) which refers to labels containing a statement, design or graphic representation which is false or misleading in any material particular; sub-clause (ii) refers to an insecticide which is an imitation of, or is sold under the name of another insecticide; and sub-clause (iii) where the label does not contain a warning which may be necessary and sufficient if complied with, to prevent risk to human beings or animals. Section 3(k) of the Insecticides Act refers to certain circumstances in which the sale or manufacture of an insecticide may attract punishment under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which relates to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

16. In this connection, section 17 of the Insecticides Act is relevant. Section 17 prohibits the import and manufacture of certain insecticides and includes, under Clause (a), ‘any misbranded insecticide’ and under clause (b), the sale, distribution or use of any insecticide prohibited under Section 27. Section 27, in turn, prohibits the sale, distribution or use of insecticides which in the opinion of the central Government or State Government are likely to involve a risk to human beings or animals.

17. Section 18(1)(b) of the Insecticides Act prohibits the sale, stocking or distribution of any insecticide which is prohibited under section 27 of the Act.

18. Section 29 of the Insecticides Act relates to offences and punishment and Clause (d) of sub-section (1) thereof, deals with sale or distribution of insecticides in contravention to section 27. Section 29(1)(a) makes the import, sale and distribution of misbranded insecticides falling under sub-clauses (i), (iii) or (viii) of section 3(k), a punishable offence.

19. In the present case, the Grounds of detention satisfy all three requirements under section 2(m) of the 1986 Act, namely, the sale and distribution of ‘misbranded insecticides’, contravention of various provisions of the Insecticides Act and the commission of the offence of cheating by selling spurious insecticides to unsuspecting farmers.

20. Contrary to the submissions made on behalf of the detenu, the Grounds link the detenu to the crimes through confessional statements made not only by the detenu himself but also by his agents and associates. The Grounds further mention that large quantities of misbranded/spurious articles were recovered from the detenu as well as his associates.

Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Public Order

21. The Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, was enacted to prevent dangerous activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘public order’.

22. Section 2 of the Act includes a range of dangerous activities and persons who could be classified as offenders on account of activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. An ‘insecticide offender’ falls under section 2(m), and is hence one of the classes of dangerous offenders covered under section 2(a) whose activities may adversely affect the maintenance of public order.

23. Section 2(a) of the 1986 Act clarifies that the words ‘acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’, in relation to the offenders mentioned under sections 2(b) - 2(x), includes engaging in or making preparations for engaging in any activities which affect adversely or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order.

24. The Explanation to section 2(a) of the 1986 Act contemplates that ‘public order’ shall be deemed to have been affected adversely, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in section 2(a), including that of an insecticides offender, directly or indirectly cause or are calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health.

25. Section 3(1) of the Act empowers the Government to pass an order of detention against any of the offenders under sections 2(b) - 2(x) for the purpose of preventing such person from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention must be made only upon the Government being satisfied that such an order is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

26. Section 3(3) requires the order of detention to be forthwith reported to the Government, along with the Grounds on which the order is made and other particulars having a bearing on the matter.

The Facts Relevant to the Order of Detention

27. It is undisputed that the detenu was released on bail on 06.03.2025 in Crime No.77/2025, on 13.06.2025 in Crime No.158/2025 and thereafter on 03.09.2025 in Crime No.237/2025. The sequence of offences, however, shows that the detenu, even after being released on bail, continued to repeat similar offences through the sale and distribution of spurious and misbranded seeds and insecticides. For instance, Crime No.158/2025 was committed after the detenu was first released on bail on 06.03.2025.

28. However, being a habitual offender is not a necessary pre-requisite for being an ‘insecticide offender’ under 2(m) of the 1986 Act. The structure of the Act makes it evident that, where the Legislative expressly used the word ‘habitually’, it intended to insist on habitual conduct. For example, section 2(g) of the 1986 Act, which defines a ‘Goonda’, explicitly requires the person to be a habitual offender. Hence, the issue as to whether the detenu was a repeat offender in terms of the sale and distribution of spurious insecticides/seeds is not relevant to the present adjudication.

29. In the present context, what needs to be examined is whether the sale and distribution of spurious or misbranded insecticides and seeds, including those sold after crossing the expiry dates amount to disturbance of public order.

30. There is little doubt that the sale of misbranded insecticides, in contravention of the provisions of The Insecticides Act, 1968, constitutes a punishable offence under section 420 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860, and would fall within the definition of an offence under section 2(m) of the 1986 Act.

31. The consequences of the sale of such misbranded insecticides, however, extend beyond the individual transactions. Such conduct has the potential to cause harm and untold misery to the farming community. This is by reason of the fact that gullible farmers purchase such insecticides with the mistaken belief that the insecticides would effectively combat insects and pests thereby ensuring proper growth and increasing yield of crops.

32. The insecticides sold after the expiry date fall within the meaning of ‘misbranded’ under section 3(k) of the Insecticides Act which essentially provides for insecticides whose labels contain false or misleading statements or fail to contain an adequate warning or caution with regard to the prevention of risk to human beings or animals. Under section 3(k)(viii) of the Insecticides Act, the insecticides would be ‘misbranded’ if it has a toxicity which is higher than the level prescribed or is mixed or packed with any substance so as to alter its nature or quality or contains any substance which is not included in the registration.

33. The Analysis Reports declared that the insecticides/seeds seized from the detenu and his agents were ‘misbranded insecticides’.

34. There are several Insecticides Analysis Reports enclosed as part of the records relied upon by the respondents. Each of the Report indicates that the percentage of the ‘active ingredient’ which was required to be present in the insecticides seized from the detenue/his associates was found to be below the required percentage. This proves that the efficacy of the insecticides were severely compromised due to the active ingredient being below the required percentage.

35. The sale and distribution of such misbranded insecticides to unsuspecting farmers would have a cascading effect on the production and quality of the crops on which such spurious insecticides were used. There would also be every likelihood of farmers suffering substantial losses as a result of stunted growth of crops. It is common knowledge that most farmers depend upon substantial loans obtained from banks and financial institutions to meet the expenses of their agricultural activities. Hence, a decreased level of production of crops would consequently impair their ability to repay loans thus aggravating their financial distress.

Impact on the Farming Community

36. It is a matter of common knowledge that farmers constitute a significant section of the country’s population. Thus, nexus between ‘sale’ of spurious/misbranded insecticides/seeds and farmers being driven to penury and distress cannot be ruled out. There is also a possibility of unrest, with aggrieved farmers attacking shops selling spurious insecticides or seeds, after suffering the consequences of purchasing counterfeit goods.

37. The occurrence of the above events is not merely a likelihood but a hard reality which has already manifested itself in several States across the country. The tragic turn in the lives of farmers is often a direct consequence of crop failure and inability to repay loans. Hence, stocking, sale or distributing misbranded insecticides has the potential to disturb the maintenance of public order.

38. India is a predominantly agrarian economy. Hence, any activity which has the potential to adversely impact the growth and production of crops must be viewed in the context of its wider social implications. Sale of such spurious and misbranded insecticides may give rise to a feeling of alarm and insecurity among farmers or those who purchase insecticides in bulk leaving to a widespread danger to their life. The activity must be consequently assessed in the context of the potential impact upon the public at large and not seen merely as isolated transactions between a buyer and a seller.

39. It is well-documented that the State of Telangana has witnessed a significant number of farmer suicides. Although farmer suicides are attributable to a combination of factors, including inadequate rainfall, poor crop yields, indebtedness, several studies have indicated that the inability of farmers to realise the expected returns on their investments also contributes significantly to such tragic outcomes. Farmers often incur substantial expenditure on seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, labour, and other agricultural inputs, but are unable to recover these costs when crops fail or yields are substantially lower than anticipated. The use of spurious or sub-standard seeds and fertilisers, pest infestations, crop diseases, and other agricultural risks are among the most common factors contributing to crop failure and consequent financial losses.

40. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dealt with a similar set of facts in Gaddam Tirupathi Rao v. The State of Telangana (W.P.No.22111 of 2023, dated 27.09.2023) which related to offences under the category of ‘spurious seed offender’ under section 2(l) of the 1986 Act. The Division Bench held that the offence of selling spurious seeds in contravention to The Seeds Act, 1996 and the relevant rules thereunder would result in disturbance to public order and it is appropriate for the State to invoke the procedure laid down under the 1986 Act to prevent repetition of such offenses in future.

41. A similar view was taken by another Co-ordinate Bench in V.Shantha v. State of Telangana (W.P.No.3671 of 2017, dated 10.04.2017), wherein the Division Bench dealt with the offence of sale of spurious seeds in the district of Khammam and neighbouring Mandals and held that the detention was justified in the facts of the case as it was necessary to prevent the detenu and his associates from further indulging in activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

42. In any event, it is well settled that a detention order is justified where the Detaining Authority has reason to believe that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and upon such release, is likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is a condition precedent for exercising the power of preventive detention and the Court can always examine whether the Detaining Authority has arrived at the requisite satisfaction (State of Maharashtra v. Bhauro Punjab Rao Gawande, 2008 (3) SCC 613). Mere pendency of criminal prosecution does not by itself vitiate an order of preventive detention. Preventive detention is a precautionary measure and is based on a reasonable prognosis of future conduct of a person based upon the material placed before the Detaining Authority. An order for preventive detention may be made before or during prosecution or even in anticipation of prosecution or after discharge or acquittal (Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B., (1975) 3 SCC 198).

Cases cited on behalf of the Petitioner

43. The Cases cited by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts as well as the relevant classification under the 1986 Act. Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana (2024 INSC 239) dealt with the classification of ‘Goonda’ under section 2(g) of the 1986 Act where the Supreme Court found that the Detaining Authority placed undue emphasis on extraneous considerations.

44. V.Shantha v. State of Telangana ((2017) 14 SCC 577) also related to section 2(g) – Goonda - of the 1986 Act. The Supreme Court took into account the order of detention stating, inter alia, that recourse to normal legal procedure would be time-consuming and would not be an effective deterrent to prevent the detenu from indulging in further prejudicial activities. The Supreme Court accordingly opined that classifying the detenu as a ‘Goonda’ and preventing him from applying for bail was a gross abuse of the statutory power of preventive detention.

45. The Supreme Court in Munagala Yadamma v. State of A.P. ((2012) 2 SCC 386 ) Act found that the offence could be dealt with under the ordinary law without taking recourse to preventive detention. The Court further held that sufficient grounds must be made out by the Detaining Authority for invoking the provisions relating to preventive detention.

46. Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana ((2021) 9 SCC 415) did not specify any particular classification under the 1986 Act. The offences involved therein were under sections 420, 406 and 506 of the IPC. The Supreme Court also followed Rekha v. State of T.N. ((2011) 5 SCC 244) in quashing the detention order, holding that detention cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary law.

47. Rekha (supra) is required to be separately dealt with since counsel for the petitioner has placed emphasis on this decision. In that case, the Supreme Court held that, the Court, in dealing with preventive detention cases, must ask whether the ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with the alleged prejudicial activity of the detenu. The detention order would be illegal if the answer is in the affirmative.

48. Besides, in Rekha, the detenu was detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 on the allegation that the detenu was selling expired drugs after tampering with the labels. The primary consideration which weighed with the Supreme Court in quashing the detention order was that the Detaining Authority was not even aware as to whether any bail application of the detenu was pending at the time of passing the detention order.

49. In that case, the bail application of the detenu as well as the detention order had been made on the same day. The Supreme Court found that the Detaining Authority passed the detention order under the impression that no bail application of the detenu was pending, whereas in similar cases, bail had been granted by the concerned Courts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that there was no scope for the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction on incomplete facts. Further, the Detention Order did not provide the details of bails being granted in similar case. Rekha (supra) was distinguished by a Division Bench of this Court in V.Shantha (supra) where the Court found that the grounds showed reference to only one incident relating to the sale of expired drugs. Hence, the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner do not assist the case of the detenu.

Conclusion

50. The Grounds of Detention disclose the evidence linking the detenu to the commission of the four crimes. It is evident from the Confessional Statements that the detenu is the mastermind and kingpin who stood at the centre of the clandestine operations involving sourcing, stocking, sale and distribution of misbranded spurious goods to unsuspecting farmers. In fact, the Grounds also list the counterfeit goods seized from the custody of the detenu as well as his agents. The Analysis Reports consistently declared that all the goods seized were misbranded. The Detaining Authority took into consideration the four crimes and also referred to an earlier crime committed in 2024 involving the same offence. However, the said crime was not taken into consideration as it was committed outside the local limits of Warangal. The Grounds further refer to the three bails obtained by the detenu on 06.03.2025, 13.03.2025, and 03.09.2025.

51. The sequence of these events demonstrates not only the continuing nature of the offences/crimes committed by the detenu but also his utter lack of remorse or repentance. The Grounds disclose subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority based on the material placed before it. We see no reason to take a different view on the admitted facts recorded in the Grounds of Detention.

52. As stated above, we are also of the considered view that the stocking, sale and distribution of misbranded insecticides fall squarely within section 2(m) of the 1986 Act defining an ‘insecticides offender’ and constitute a contravention of section 3(k) of the Insecticides Act which defines ‘misbranded insecticides'. The crimes are also in contravention of sections 17, 27 and 29 of the Insecticides Act which, inter alia, prohibit the manufacture and sale of misbranded insecticides for reasons of public safety. We thus do not have any reason to disagree with the impugned order of detention dated 08.09.2025 or doubt its legality.

53. W.P.No.31376 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.