Dismissed

Bukhari Kishen Rahul Singh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Aug 2021WP/2165/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of the petitioner's brother as a 'drug offender' under the Telangana P.D. Act, based on two NDPS cases involving seizure of ganja. The court held that the detaining authority had considered the conditional bail orders, that the activities affected public order, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bukhari Kishen Rahul Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE

¶6

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 2165 OF 2021

¶9

Between:

¶10

Bukhari Kishen Rahul Singh, S/o.Sudheer Singh, aged about 27^yearc, occ. Private employee, FJo. H. No. 1 3-1 -51 4lBl 13131 1 Ganga Bowli, Hyderabad

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration Department (Poll), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad District.

¶15

The Superintendent of Jails Chenchalguda, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^may be^pleased to issue Writ, order, direction^{particularlyin} the^{natureof writ} of^{Habeas Corpus} directing the respondents to^produce the detenue by Ritesh^{Singh S/o.late Sudheer} Singh, aged about24^years, Rio. H.No.13-2-709,^{opp. By-lane of Raheempuraplay} ground, tvlangalhat, Hyderabad before this Honble Court and set him at liberty by dectaring the detention order 29.10.2020^{issued in ProceedingsSB(l). No.205/PD-2l} HYD|2020,^passed by the 2nd respondent and^{all the consequential orders i.e.,} G.O.Rt.No.120 General Administration^{(SPL)(Lawand Order) Department,dated} 12.01 .2021^passed by the 1st respondent as^{illegal, arbitrary}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A PRABHAKAR^RAO

¶19

Counset for the Respondents: SRI T.SRIKANTH^{REDDY GP FOR HOME} FOR ADOITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL^(TG)

¶20

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

¶21

r^;-",',-.",". .,*lrlr--; I r l'

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER^REDDY

¶23

AND

¶24

THE HON.BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM^AKTHER

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.2165 of 2O21

¶26

ORDER:^(Per the Horr'ble Dr, lustice Shameem Akther)

¶27

Mr. Bukhari Kishen Rahul Singh, the^petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus^petition on behalf of his brother, Ritesh Slngh, S/o. late Sudheer Singh, aged about 24^years/ the detenu, challenging the detention order vide SB (I)No.205/PD-2/HYD/2020, dated 29.10.2020, passed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, whereln, the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertilizer Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document offendr:rs, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders & White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1.986 (for short, "P.D. Act") and the consequential conFirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.120, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 12.0L.202t, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Tela nga na.

¶28

Heard the submissions of Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel

¶29

for the petitioner, Sri T.Srikanth RecJdy, learned Government Pleader for Home represerting the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.

¶30

AKKI J at Dr,5A, .l WP No 2165/2021

¶31

¶32

The background of the case, in brief, is that by relying two criminal cases registered against the detenu in Crime Nos.316/2019 and 70/2020 of Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad, the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, passed the impugned detention order, dated 29.10.2020. According to the respondent No.2, the detenu is a 'drug offender', as he has been indulging in highly dangerous activities of peddling'ganja', a narcotic drug, among the people in the limits of Hyderabad Police Commissionerate, duly endangering the lives of youth and innocent people, causing irreparable damage to their body organs, including the Central Nervous System and thereby, crippling the mental and physical health of the people addicted to drugs, With a view to prevent the detenu from damaging the health of general public, especially youth, by supplying 'Ganja', which is prejudicial to maintenance of public order, the impugned detention order, dated 29.10.2020, was passed, which was confirmed by the Government, by order, dated Lz.Ol.2O2t. Hence, this Writ Petition before this Court.

¶33

4, The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned detention order is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, improper, against the principles of natural justice and has been passed in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. The detenu is falsely implicated in the cases relied by the detaining authority. The alleged criminal activities of the detenu, in any event, would not satisfy the word 'drug offender'. The detaining authority has not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, while passing the impugned detention order. The detenu was granted conditional bail in both the crimes relied by the detaining

¶34

ARR, J & DT SA, J UPNo2l65/2021

¶35

¶36

authority. Hence, there was no need to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws against the detenu, since the detenu would be well within the surveillance of^police. Further, the detenu^has been complying the bail conditions. The conditions imposed in the bail orders were sufficient to^prevent the detenu from fleeing from justice. Thus, the impugned detention order is vitiated by nonconsideration of the bail conditions. In case the detenu had violated the bail conditions, the sponsoring authority could have taken steps for cancellation of bail. Instead, the sponsoring authority gave a requisition to the detaining authority for passing the detention order. Further, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu is vague and not based on any material. Further, the detaining authority failed to furnish the material relied upon by it to the detenu in the language known to him, i.e., Hindi, which deprived the detenu to exercise his constitutional right of making a representation to the authorities. lYoreover, the cases alleged against the detenu do not add up to "disturbing the public order". They are confined within the ambit and scope of the word "law and order". Since the offences alleged are under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short,'NDPS Act'), the detenu can certainly be tried under the said special law. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws. Hence, the impugned detention order tantamounts to colourable exercise of power. Preventive detention cannot be made a substitute to punitive detention. The detaining authority has to be extremely careful while passing the detention order, since the detention ipso facto adversely affegts the fundamental right of personal liberty enjoyed by the

¶37

WP No.2165/2021

¶38

¶39

people under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the detention order is legally unsustainable^{and ultimately,prayedto set} aside the same and allow^{the writ petition as prayedfor. In support} of his contentions, the^{learned counselhad relied on the following} decisions.

¶40

1 M,Ahamedkutty vs. Union of India^{(UoI)and othersl} 2 Ramesh Yadav Vs. District Magistrate,^{Etah and others2}

¶41

3 Binod Singh vs, District Magistrate,^{Dhanbad-and others3}

¶42

4 Anitha Bai vs. State of Telangana^{and others"}

¶43

5 Santhosh Singh Vs, State of^{Telangana and otherss}

¶44

6 Smt. Sneha Singh Vs. state^{of Telangana and others6} 7 Nakka Srinu Vs. State of^{Telangana and othersT} I Md.Naseem Vs, state of^{Telangana and otherss}

¶45

On the other^hand, Sri^{T'srikanthReddy, the learned} Government Pleader for^{Home,appearingfor the respondents,} supported the^{impugneddetention order and submitted the detenu} has been indulging in^grave and^{dangerousactivities of peddling} 'Ganja', a narcotic substance, duly^{endangering the lives of youth} and causing irreparable^{damageto their body organs including} Central Nervous System^{and thereby, crippling the health of those} who are addicted to drugs.^{The unlawful activitiesof the detenu} were causing widespread^{danger to the publichealth and were} detrimental to the^{public order. In the first crime, i'e', Crime} No.316/2019, the^{police seized21 Kgs of'Ganja' and in the second} crime, i.e., Crime^{No.7012020,the police seized 22 Kgs of 'Ganja'} from the^possession of^{the detenuand his associate'Free sale of} drugs not^{just impacts individuals and their health, but also} adversely affects the^{society at large.IF the youth gets caught in a}

¶46

'^{r99o(2) sccI}

¶47

'(1985)^{4 scc232}

¶48

I (tgte) a scc +to

¶49

o becidea on Q.04.2021 in w.P,No.l657 of 2021 by the High Court fbr the State of Telangana

¶50

5 Decided on 23.04.2021 inW.P.No.16g1 of 2O2l by the High Court for the State ofTelangana

¶51

6 Decided on 18.02.2019 in W.p.No.38082 of20l8 by the High court for the state ofTelangana

¶52

7 Decided on 26.12.2019 in W P.No 20904 of20l9 by the High Couft for the State ofTelangana s Decided on 09. t L2018 in W.p.No.32398 0f 20 I 8 by the High court of Judicature at Hyderabad^{for the} State ofTelangana^{andthe Stateof AndltraPradesh}

¶53

....-?-

¶54

ARR. J &^{Dr SA,J} WP No 2165/2021

¶55

trap of drug^{addlction,they slowly begin to disobey the lawand} commit^{petty crimes, in order to ensure constant supplyof drugs to} themselves and^{eventually become physically and financially,a} burden to the society^{itself' Therefore, sale of drugs by drug} offenders adversely^{affectsa large segment of society and hence'it} disturbs the maintenance^{of public order. Further, the detenu stated} that he studied^{up to intermediatein English mediumand requested} the detaining authority^{to provide him Englishtranslatedcopies of} the detention orcler,^{groundsof detention and the documentsrelied} upon. Accordingly,^{the detenu was servedwith the English} translated copies within^{the mandatoryperiod and the detenu} acknowledged the^{receiptof the same by signingeach pagein} English' Further, the^{two crimes relied upon for detaining the detenu} werecommittedbyhiminquickSuccession.InSpiteofhisarrest andremandinthefirstcrime,hedidnotmendhisattitudeand continued to commit^{simllar oFfences after his release on bail. with a} view to prevent the detenu^{from further indulgingin such dangerous} activities in the interest^{of the society, the impugneddetentionorder} was passed. The subjective^{satisfaction reachedby the detaining} authority in^{preventively detaining the detenu is not tainted or illegal.} Further, the Advisory^{Board, in its review meeting held on} 14.12.2020, upon hearing^{thedetenu and theconcerned} investigating officials^{and upon consideringthe entire materialplaced} before it, rendered its opinion^{that there is sufficientcause for} detention of the detenu.^{on consideringthe opinion of the Advisory} Board and upon considering^{the entirematerial, the Government} confirmed the irnpugned detention^{order videG.O.Rt'No.120,dated} ., 12.01.2021.^Therefore, the^{detainingauthority was Iegally justified}

¶56

wP No 2t6512A21

¶57

¶58

in passing the impugned detention order. All the mandatory provisions and the saFeguards envisaged under the law were strictly followed, while passing the impugned detention order and hence, the impugned detention order does not suffer from illegality or impropriety and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶59

In view of the submissions made by both sides, the point that arises for determination in this Writ Petition is:

¶60

"Whether the impugned detention order, dated 29.7O.2O2O, passed by respondent No.2 and the consequential confirmation order, dated 72.07,2027, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, are liable to be set aside?"

¶61

POINT: Briefly, the facts of the case are that by relying on two criminal cases registered against the detenu in Crime Nos.316/2019 and 70/2020 of Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad, the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City,^passed the detention order, dated 29.L0.2020. According to the^{respondent No.2,the} detenu is a'drug offender'and has been habitually^{indulging in illegal} activities of^peddling narcotic drugs, duly endangering the^lives of youth and innocent people, causing irreparable damage to their body organs including the Central Nervous System and thereby,^crippling the mental and^physical health of the^people addicted to drugs and acting in a manner^prejudicial to the maintenance of^{publicorder and} health as well, The detenu is a^potential threat to the maintenance of^public order in^general and^{public health} in^{particular. In the two} cases relied upon by the detaining authority, the detenu^{was granted} conditional bail by this Court. In order to^prevent the^detenufrom

¶62

ARR,J&DI.SA,J wP No 2I65/2021

¶63

¶64

indulging in such illegal activities,^{whichare detrimentalto the public} order, the impugned detention^{order, dated 29.10.2020,waspassed,} which was confirmed by the^{Government byorder,dated} t2.01.2021.

¶65

The material^placed on record^{reveals that the detenu-Ritesh} Singh, S/o. late Sudheer Singh,^{who is alleged to be a 'drug} offender', has been habitually^{indulging in procuring'Ganja'tosell} the same to^youth and^{people addicted to drugs to make easyand} illegal money and lead a lavish lifeⁱⁿ the^{limitsoF Hyderabad Police} Com m issionerate. His illegal activities^{have caused widespread} danger to the^public health.^The detaining^{authorityrelied on two} cases for^preventively detaining the detenu.^{We shall present.them} in a tabular column the date of occurrence,^{the date of registrationof} FIR, the offences complained of and their^{nature, such as} bailable/non-bailable or cognizable/non-cognizable.

¶66

s. No.	CrimeNo,	Dateof Occurrence	Dateof registration ofFIR	Offence	Nature
1.	316/2019 of MangalhatPolice Station		28.12.2019	ectionB^(c)read with20^(b)(ii) (C)ofNDPSAct Q!y:^21kgs ofGan a	Cognizable/ Non-bailable
2	70/2024 of ManqalhatPolice Station	23.03.2024	23.03.2024	ect on B(c)read with20(b)(ii) (C) ofNDPSAct Qly:^{22kgs of} Gan a	Cognizable/ Non-ballable

¶67

As seen from the material^placed on record, in^Crime

¶68

No.316/2019, 21 kilograms of Ganja was seized from the^possession of the detenu ard his associate. In Crime No.70/2020,22^{kgs of} ganja was seized from the possession of the detenu and his associate. 1n Cr me No.316/2019, the detenu voluntarily confessed --+o be in possess,on of Ganja and has been selling Ganja at higher

wP No.2165/2021

price to the needy and prospective customers to earn easy illegal money. In Crime No.7012020, the detenu voluntarily confessed that he and his associate purchased 22 kilograms of Ganja @ Rs.6,000/per kilogram on 77.03,2020 from their associate Ramana, resident of Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, and were carrying the same in two travel bags to sell the same to the needy/prospective customers to make easy money. In Crime No.316/2019, the detenu was arrested on 28.12.2079. He moved first bail petition on 02.01.2020, which was dismissed by the Court concerned. Then, he moved second bail petition before this Court on 21.01.2020 and this Court granted conditional bail to him vide order, dated 29.01.2020, passed in Criminal Petition No.441 of 2020, and he was released from jail vide Release Order Dis No.424/2020, dated 31.01.2020. After his release on conditional bail in Crime No.316/20L9, the detenu was again caught possessing Ganja and was arrested on 23.03.2020 and a second case in Crime No.7012020 was registered against him. He moved first bail petition in the said crime on 23.04.2020, which was dismissed by the Court concerned. He moved second bail petition before this Court on 07.05,2020 and this Court granted conditional bail to him vide order, dated 21.05.2020,^passed in Criminal Petition No.21B3 of 2O2O and he was released from jail vide Release Order Elec. Dis. No. 1 5/ 2020, on 27 .05.2020.

¶73

The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on M.Ahamedkutty's case (1 supra), vehemently argued that nonconslderation of the conditional bail orders^granted to the detenu vitiates the detention order and that the conditions imposed while granting bail are sufficient to prevent the detenu from fleeing from justice. Similar contention was raised before a Division Bench of this

¶74

ARR,J&DT.SA,J wP No.2l6sl2021

¶75

¶76

Court in^{MuPPidiSwapnaVs. State of Telangana and otherse'}

¶77

wherein, it was^{heldas follows:}

¶78

Thelearnedcounselforthedetenuarguedwithtotofemphasisthat. some of tne^{bail orairsaie conditionZland thereforethe natureof} the conditians^{was very much relevantfor respondentNo'2-to} ioiriau, whether^{they weresufficientto prevent the detenufrom} iieeing from^{jttstice ind that non-consideration of theconditional} bail 6rders^{ias vitiated the detention order'We are afraid' we} ,innot ,rr"pt^{thissubmissionbecause irrespective of whetherthe} bail orders^{containei io,nditions or not, respondent No.2 has arrived} ai the subjectite^{satisfaction that in spite of his arrest in connection} with the criminal^{cases, the detenuis repeating his activities after} 'iiiiinj ircutuc on bail. This necessarilY means that the detaioing aut;ority^{was not onlyaware of the fact that the detenu was} released on^{bail in alt lhecases,but also the fact that the ordinary} laws set in^{motion have provedinefficacious'Even the learned} counsel for the^{detenu has not placedbefore the Court thebail} orders which^{ourportedly contained conditions'In anY event' the} facts of the^{ca.se,reveal ihat irrespectiveof the alteged conditionsof} bail, the detenu^{continued his atleged illegal activities whichis} ianifest from^{the fact thatas manY as sevencriminalcases were} registered against^{him insuccession,clearly showingthat the} atieged conditions^{of bail did not deterthe detenufromrepeating} his alleged illegal^activities '

¶79

ll.intheinstantcasealso,grantofconditionalbailtothedetenu was specifically referred^{in the detentionorder and a copy of the} conditional bail^{order along with other relevant materialwere} supplied to the detenu.^{When the detaining authority had noticed} grant of bail on conditions^{and a copy of the said orders have been} ServedonthedetenUtomakearepresentatlonbeforetheauthoritieS concerned, it cannot^{be said that the detainingauthority hadnot} taken into consideration^{the conditions imposed while gratingbail to} the detenu.^{The detaining authority, having examinedthe material} against the detenu^{including grant of conditional bail, was pleased to} pass the impugned detention^{order. Further,the material placedon} record reveal that^{the detenu committed first crime,ie} '^Crime No.316 of 2019^{on28.12.2Ot9 and he was granted conditional bail by} this Court on^{29.01.2020vide Criminal PetitionNo'441 of 2020 and} hewasreleasedfromjailon3l.0l.2020.Inthesaidbailorder/one

¶80

'2016^{scc online Hyd551}

¶81

ARR,J&Ur.SA,J WP No.2l6512021

¶82

¶83

oF the conditions is that the detenu shall not indulge in similar activities in future. But after release from jail, the petitioner committed similar second crime/ i.e,, Crime No.70 of 2020 on 23.03.2020. It establishes that the detenu had patently violated the bail conditions imposed in the first crime and those conditions did not deter him from committing second similar crime, wherein, substantial quantity of ganja was seized from the possession of the detenu and his associate. Further, in Kamarunnissa v. Union of Indialo, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if an authority passes an order after recording its satisfaction, such an order cannot be struck down ostensibly on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and seek cancellation of bail.

¶84

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance over the^judgment in M.Ahmedkutty's case (1 supra) in support of his contention that non-consideration of bail order would amount to non-application of mind. Similar contention was raised before a Division Bench of this Court in Naresh Singh Vs. State of Tetangana and othersll, wherein, it was held as follows:

¶85

"But a close scrutiny of the judgment in M.Ahmedkutty (supras) goes to show that the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the detaining authorjty considered the Supreme Court's interim order in pending appeal against High Court's quashing of a previous order of detention against the same detenu was considered or not. While dealing with the said issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Cou rt held as u nder:

¶86

"25. Non -conside ratio n of the bail order would have therefore, in this case, amounted to non- application of mind. In Union of India v. Manoharlal Narang t(1987) 2 SCC 2411 the Supreme Court's interim order in pending appeal against High Court's quashing of a previous order of detention agajnst the same detenu was not considered by the detaining authority while making the impugned subsequent order against him. It was held that nonconsideration of the interim order which constituted a relevant and important material was fatal to the subsequent detention order on ground of non-application of mind. If the detaining authority considered that order one could not state

¶87

'o I^{I oo I 11 SupremeCoun cases128}

¶88

' Decided on 05.03.2020 in W.P.No.5O2 of2020 by the LIigh Cou( for the State ofTelangana

¶89

('h.r'

¶90

1RR, J & Dr SA, J wP No 2165/2021

¶91

¶92

with definiteness which way his subjective satisfaction would have reacted and it could have^persuaded the detaining authority tc desist from^passing the order of detention."

¶93

Thus, in the af'orementioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court^was not dealing w th the issue regarding consideration of conditlons imposed in the bail order by the detaining authority, but that^aspect was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench in^{WP No,38082} of 2018, wherein the said order was^passed basing on the order in W.P.No.32398 of 2018, dated 09,11,2018. The said distinction^was not noticed by the Division Bench in W.P,No,3239B of 2018. In the instant case, 3s stated supra, conditional bail orders passed in favour of the detenu were considered by the detaining authority. When bail orders weTe considered, it cannot be said that the conditions mposed in the said order were not considered,"

¶94

In the instant case, in view of the facts and circumstances and specific menticn of grant of conditional bails to the detenu in the impugned detention order, it cannot be said that the detaining authority did nrt^(:onsider the conditions imposed while granting ball orders in favour of the detenu. So, the contention of the petitioner that the impugred detention order is vitiated by non-consideration of the bail conditions cannot be accepted,

¶95

t4. Further, it is apt to state that preventive detention is different from punitive detention. While punitive detention could be enforced under ordinary criminal law, the law of preventive detention can be enforced against habitual offenders to prevent them from committing the future similar offences, which are detrimental to the public interest, disturbing the even tempo of life and causing damage to public health. The legal parameters for testing the validity of 'preventive detention'fundamentally vary from that of 'punitive detention'.

¶96

In the case oF Madhu Limaye Vs, Sub-Divisional Magistratel2. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

¶97

._^{"The acts wh ch disturbpublic tranquility} or are breaches of the Teace^{shouldnot be givena narrow} meaning, but should^{be given}

¶98

''^{1t 9zo1 3 scc 7+o}

¶99

wP No,2l65/2021

¶100

¶101

a liberal interpretation.^{For the expression'in the interest of public} order' is very wide amPlitude."

¶102

In the case of Commissioner^{of Police& OthersVs. C.Anita} (Smt.)13, the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the issue of^"public

¶103

order" and "law and order" and^{observed as follows:}

¶104

"The crucial issue is whether the activities^{oF the detenu were} prejudicial to public order. While the expression "law and order"^is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention^{of law alwaysaffects} order, "public order"^has a^{narrowerambit,and publicorder could} be affected by only such^{contraventionwhich affectsthe} community or the^public at^{large.Public orderis the even tempoof} life of the community taking the^{country as a wholeor even a} specified locality.^{The distinctionbetweenthe areas of "lawand} order" and^"public order"^{is oneof the degreeand extent of the} reach of the act in^question on^{society.It is the potentiality of the} act to disturb the even^{tempo of life of the community which} makes it^prejudicial to the^{maintenanceof the public order. If a} contravention in its effect^{is confined only to a few individuals} directly involved as distinct^{from a wide spectrumof the public, it} could raise^problem of^{law and order only. Itis thelength,} magnitude and intensity of^{the terror wave unleashedbya} particular eruption of disorder that^{helps to distinguishit as an act} affecting "public order"^{from that concerning"law andorder".The} questio; to ask is: "Does it lead to disturbance of^{the current life of} the community so as^{to amount to a disturbance of the public} order or does it affect^{merelyan individual leavingthe tranquility} of the society undisturbed?"^{This questionhas to be faced in every} case on its^facts."

¶105

t7, As^per the clause^{(f) of Section 2 of the P'D.Act,a "drug} offender" means a^{person,who manufactures,stocks,imports,} exports, sells or^{distributes any drug or cultivatesany plant or does} any other thing^{in contravention oF any of the provisionsof the Drugs} and Cosmetics Act,^{1940 (Central Act XXIII of 1940),or the Narcotic} Drugs and Psychotropic^{SubstancesAct, 1985 (CentralAct 61 of} 1985) and the rules,^{notification and orders made under either Act, or} in contravention of^{any other Law for the time being in force, or who} knowingly expends^{or applies any money in furtheranceor support of} thedoingofanyoftheabovementionedthingsbyhimselforthrough any other^{person,or who abets in any othermannerthe doingof any}

¶106

such thing.

¶107

't^{(2004)7 scc467}

¶108

ARR.J&Dr.SA.J q P No.2l65/2021

¶109

¶110

The^{personalliberty of an individual, whichthe law preserves} and^{protects,can also be taken away by following the procedure} established by^{law, when it is used to jeopardizethe public good ln} theinstantcase,thecommissionofallegedoffencesaSindicatedin the above table^{clearly demonstrates that the detenu, along with his} associate, clandestinely^{indulging in procuring'Ganja' to sell the} same to^{youth and people addictedto drugsto make easy moneyand} leadalavishlife,whichwouldcertainlydisturbthepublicpeaceand tranquility. As^{mentioned above,the detenu, instead of mending} himself, committed^{similaroffenceafter his release on conditional bail} in the first crime. so^{it is imperative upon the officersconcernedto} pass the order of detention,^{since the acts of the detenu are} prejudicial to the maintenance of^{public order' The detaining} authority had sufficient^{materialto record subjective satisfaction that} thedetentionofthedetenuWasnecessarytomaintainpublicorder andeventempooflifeofthecommunity.TheorderoFdetention does not suffer^from any^{illegality.The grounds of detention,as} indicated in the impugned^{order,are found to be relevant and in tune} withtheprovisionsoftheP.D.Act'sincethedetenuwasgranted conditional bail in both^{the cases reliedby the detaining authorlty,} there is nothing wrong on^{the part of the detaining authority in} raising an apprehension that^{there is possibilityof the detenu} committing similar offences,^{which would again certainly affect the} public health at large. Though the^{learned counselfor the petitioner} contended that the detenu^{was not suppliedwith the documents} relied upon by^{the detainingauthorityin the languageknown to him'} i.e., Hindi, the^{said contention has been refuted by the respondents} in the counter^{contending that the detenu studiedup to intermediate}

*---'

-'-' ' 'a

wP No ,16s/?0rl

in English medium and he requested the detaining authority to provide him English translated copies of the detention order, grounds of detention and the documents relied upon and^{accordingly, the} detenu was served with the^English translated^{copies withinthe} mandatory^period and the detenu acknowledged the^{receipt of the} same by signing each^page in English. There^{is no reply by the} petitioner disputing the said contention. Moreover, in the course of submissions, the learned counsel^for the^{petitioner has not pressed} this point. Therefore, it^{is deemed that the detenu has been supplied} with the copies of the documents^{relied by the detainingauthority in} the language known to him,^{i.e,, English.Moreover,the said} contention cannot be a^{ground to set asidethe impugneddetention} order. The subjective^{satisfaction reached by the detaining authority} is not tainted or illegal on any account.^{The acts of the detenu} cannot be effectively dealt^{with under special law.}

¶116

Before^parting, as righty^{observed by this Court in Naresh} Singh's case⁽¹¹ supra),^{the menace of drug abuse and proliferation} of drug trade is an open secret.^{Drug abuseis not only confined to} the urban centres, but^{has even spread to rural areas. It is common} knowledge that drug^{problemsare rampant amongst the youth' The} easy availability of drugs^{has distorted the lives of the manyyoung} men and women in our society.^{In order to ensure a steady supply of} drugs for themselves,^{theseyoung men and women are prone to} commit^petty offences.^{The illegal money earnedin this activity fuels} the other nefarious activities.^{Therefore,what may patently appear} to be a "law and order"^{problem, on a deeper analysis, emerges as a} "public order"^{problem.Hence, while dealing with preventive} detention cases^{qua offencescommitted under the NDPSAct, the}

¶117

---

¶118

¶119

Courts have to be vigilant with^regard to^{the impactof suchoffences} on the society at large. Thus, the^{learned counsel for the petitioneris} unjustified in claiming that the two^{cases registeredagainst the} detenu should be seen as "law and order"^{problemand not as a} "public order"^prob lem.

¶120

Under these circumstances, the detaining authority^{is justified} in^passing the impugned detention order. We do not^{see any merit in} this Writ Petition and as such, it is liable to be dismissed.

¶121

2L, The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be^no order as to costs.

¶122

Miscellaneous petitions^pending, if any, in this Writ Petition,

¶123

shall stand closed.

¶124

SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY' ,,t

SECTION^OFFICER

to'''

on" 99'9^s li l,:l1Ti:T#:,:11ffi:^{[oi;r'uc?u'tto' the stateor rer a nsana} 2. Two^{CCsto Additionr} e. roPUCliwo^{CC to GP for Home' High Court for the State of Telangana (OUT)}

¶129