Supreme Court: Can't detain someone just because they might commit crime after bail

The Supreme Court has ruled that mere apprehension that a person released on bail might commit similar crimes is not sufficient ground for preventive detention. The court emphasized that detention orders must show actual or likely adverse effect on public order, not just fear of future offences.

The bench quashed and set aside the detention order passed on March 10, 2025 against Aruna Bai alias Anguri Bai by the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad.

The court found the detention order does not indicate in what manner maintenance of public order was either adversely affected or was likely to be adversely affected so as to detain the person.

It was stated that the detenu was involved in three cases for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

Appellant Roshini Devi, the daughter of the detenu, approached the Telangana High Court but it refused to interfere with the detention order.

The High Court was of the view that the repeated and well planned actions of the detenu were sufficient to raise the presumption of threat and alarm amongst the general public regarding their health which was the primary criteria for maintaining peace as well as law and order in society.

The appellant's counsel submitted that merely because the detenu was found to be a drug offender, there was no justification for passing the detention order.

He said the detenu had been released on bail in the 2024 case and it could not be said that conditions imposed while releasing her were insufficient to prevent her from committing any further offence. The detention order was passed merely as an alternative to cancellation of bail.

He further submitted that merely by referring to previous criminal history attributed to the detenu, the detention order had been passed.

Opposing the plea, state counsel said that considering her continuing involvement in dealing with Ganja which was evident from crimes registered against her, the detaining authority was justified in concluding that her activities adversely affected maintenance of public order.

Her continued illegal acts indicated that provisions of ordinary law were insufficient to deter her from continuing such illegal acts in dealing with narcotic drugs.

The court noted the detention order recorded three crimes registered against the detenu, with the last related to possession of Ganja lodged when she was in judicial custody. She was granted bail in two cases on February 11, 2025.

The detaining authority stated they strongly believed that though she was in judicial custody in another case and her bail petition was pending, in case of being granted bail in the said case and after release on bail she would again resort to similar unlawful activities of peddling Ganja, keeping in view her antecedents and considering ill effects of Ganja on public health and particularly youth and students.

Having gone through the detention order, the bench said it is clear that the detaining authority intended to detain the mother of the appellant at any cost. Her conduct during the period 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 has not been done.

The bench cited Ameena Begum vs the State of Telangana and Others (2023), wherein the effect of extraneous factors weighing in the mind of the detaining authority while passing an order of detention has been considered.

The court noted the detention order does not indicate in what manner maintenance of public order was either adversely affected or was likely to be adversely affected so as to detain the detenu.

Mere reproduction of the expressions mentioned in Section 2(a) of the Act of 1986 in the detention order would not be sufficient. The detention order ought to indicate the recording of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in that regard.

The court pointed out 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 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 order of detention.

The court thus allowed the appeal against the High Court's judgment of October 28, 2025.

The detention order was passed under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and other offenders Act, 1986.

The court ordered the detenu would be released forthwith if not required in any other proceedings.

The judgment reinforces that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure that requires concrete evidence of threat to public order, not mere speculation about future criminal conduct. Courts must ensure detention orders demonstrate actual subjective satisfaction by authorities and not merely reproduce statutory language without substantive reasoning.

Case details: Roshini Devi vs The State of Telangana and Others, decided by a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar decided on January 8, 2026.