Apprehension of detenu engaging in crime if granted bail no ground for preventive detention: SC

New Delhi, Mere apprehension on the part of the detaining authority that if a detenu is released on bail, he/she would indulge in similar crimes that would be prejudicial to public order will not be a sufficient ground to order preventive detention, the Supreme Court has said.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and A S Chandurkar set aside the detention order of a woman from Hyderabad, who was found to be a "drug offender" under the 1986 Telangana law Prevention of Dangerous Activities on the ground that the detention order did not indicate in what manner the maintenance of public order was either adversely affected or was likely to be adversely affected so as to detain the detenu.

"Thus, mere apprehension on the part of the detaining authority that in the event of the detenu being released on bail, she was likely to indulge in similar crimes that would be prejudicial to maintenance of public order would not be a sufficient ground to order her preventive detention," the bench said in its January 8 order.

The top court, which also set aside the order of the Telangana High Court, said the detenu was found to be a "drug offender" under Section 2 of the 1986 Act by observing that ill-effects of ganja were harmful and injurious to public health under power conferred by the provisions of the 1986 Act.

It said the collector and district magistrate was also of the view that the detenu had moved an application for grant of bail, which was pending and there was apprehension that if the detenu succeeded in obtaining bail, she would continue to engage in illegal activities.

The bench said the detention order noted that the proceedings registered against her under the ordinary law had no deterrent effect and hence it was found necessary to detain her as a last resort in the interest of the public at large and on this basis, the order of detention came to be passed on March 10, 2025.

"On the premise that if the detenu was released on bail, she was likely to indulge in serious offences, the detaining authority proceeded to record that it was satisfied that cases registered against her under the ordinary law had no deterrent effect in preventing her prejudicial activities.

"Whether the conditions imposed while enlarging the detenu on bail in the earlier offences were insufficient to prevent her from indulging in similar offences has not been adverted to," the bench underscored, referring to the detention order.

The top court said it was clear that the detaining authority intended to detain the mother of the appellant at any cost.

It said, "Her conduct from 2016 to 2023 has been kept in mind. If the detaining authority was of the view that the detenu had violated any conditions of bail, steps for cancellation of her liberty could have been taken. That was not done here."

The bench said the detention order ought to indicate the recording of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in that regard and it is well settled that there is a fine distinction between "law and order" and "public order".

"Mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order unless there is material to show that the narcotic drug dealt with by the detenu was in fact dangerous to public health under the Act of 1986. This material is found to be missing in the detention order," it said.

Directing forthwith release of the woman , the bench quashed the detention order and set aside the October 28, 2025, order of the Telangana High Court.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.