Under these circumstances, the apprehension of the detaining authority that there is irnrp;ngn1 possibiiity oF the detenu indurging in similar offence, is highiy misplaced. It is the bounden duty of the Police to inform the rearned pubric prosecutor about the conduct of the detenu and to handover the entire case record available against the detenu' The police are supposed to be vigirant in corecting the whore data against the detenu and furnish the same to the public Prosecutor/Additional public prosecutor to defeat the bail application/s of the detenu. Further, in the instant case, since the detenu was granted conditional bail by the court concerned, ir it is found that the detenu violated the bail conditions, the prosecution can apprise the same to the Court concerned and seek cancellation of bail. Moreover, criminal raw was arready set into motion against the detenu. Further, there is no antecedent criminal history against the detenu. As held in vijay Narain singh v, state of Biharr, a singre act or omission cannot be characterized as a habituar act because, the idea of,habit, involves an element of persistence and a tendency to commit or repeat similar offences, which is patenuy not present in the instant case. since the detenu has allegedly committed offence punishable under the NDPS Act, the said crime can be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the special law and there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention law. The detaining authority cannot be permitted to subvert, supplant or substitute the punitive law of land, by ready resort to preventive detention.
