Mere Apprehension Of Repetition Of Offences On Grant Of Bail Cannot Justify Preventive Detention: Supreme Court
The Apex Court observed that a preventive detention order cannot be sustained solely on the apprehension of the detaining authority that the detenu, if released on bail, may indulge in similar activities prejudicial to public order, in the absence of material demonstrating such likelihood.
The Supreme Court held that mere apprehension on the part of the detaining authority that the detenu, upon being released on bail, was likely to indulge in similar crimes prejudicial to the maintenance of public order would not constitute a sufficient ground to order preventive detention.
The Court was hearing an appeal arising from an order of the Telangana High Court, which had declined to interfere with an order of preventive detention passed against the detenu under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Others Act, 1986.
A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that “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 appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, while the respondents were represented by Advocate Kumar Vaibhaw.
Background
The detention order had been passed against the detenu, who was alleged to be involved in multiple offences registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The detaining authority relied upon three criminal cases registered in 2024 to classify the detenu as a “drug offender” and invoked its powers under Section 3 of the 1986 Act to order preventive detention.
The detenu was already in judicial custody in connection with one of the cases and had either been granted bail or had bail applications pending in the remaining cases. The detaining authority recorded that, if released on bail, the detenu was likely to continue engaging in similar unlawful activities, and that proceedings under ordinary criminal law had no deterrent effect.
The detention order was approved and confirmed in accordance with the statutory scheme. A writ petition challenging the detention was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court examined the grounds of detention and noted that they primarily rested on the detenu’s past criminal history and the apprehension that she might repeat similar offences if released on bail. The Court observed that the detention order did not advert to whether the conditions imposed while granting bail in earlier cases were inadequate or had been violated.
The Court held that if the detaining authority was of the view that the detenu had breached bail conditions, recourse ought to have been taken to seek cancellation of bail under ordinary criminal law.
Referring to its earlier decision in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana (2023), the Court reiterated that preventive detention laws, being extraordinary in nature, must be strictly construed and cannot be used to circumvent judicial scrutiny or to keep an accused in custody merely because bail has been granted.
The Bench also noted that mere reproduction of the expressions mentioned in the Preventive Detention Act in the order of detention is not sufficient. The detention order, the Court stated, “ought to indicate the recording of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in that regard.”
The Bench further emphasised the distinction between “law and order” and “public order”, holding that “mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order.”
The detention order, the Court noted, failed to indicate how the alleged activities of the detenu had adversely affected or were likely to adversely affect public order, beyond reproducing statutory language.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the preventive detention order was unsustainable, as it was founded on mere apprehension without material demonstrating that the detenu’s release on bail would prejudice the maintenance of public order.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the detention order as well as the judgment of the High Court upholding it, and directed that the detenu be released forthwith if not required in any other proceedings. The appeal was allowed.
Cause Title: Roshini Devi v. The State of Telangana & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 41)
Appearances
Appellant: Senior Advocate Ravi Shankar Jandhyala with Advocates Kumar Abhishek, Vikas Pandey, Sunny Kumar, Satyam Parashar and Devi Venkata Srikar Pagadala
Respondents: Advocate Kumar Vaibhaw with Advocate Ishaan Ojha and Devina Sehgal