The Telangana High Court on 28 October 2025 dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by Smt. Roshni Devi, who sought the release of her mother, Smt. Aruna Bai alias Anguri Bai. The two-judge bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar upheld the preventive detention order issued under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986.
The court observed that the detaining authority acted within its powers to prevent further harm to public health caused by repeated drug-related offences.
Background
Aruna Bai, a 48-year-old resident of Hyderabad, had been detained at the Central Prison for Women, Chanchalguda, after being accused in three separate ganja-related cases registered in 2024.
The prosecution alleged that she had been repeatedly selling and distributing ganja, with total recoveries of about 24 kilograms from different accused who named her as the source. The police claimed that her activities endangered public health and spread drug addiction, especially among young people.
Roshni Devi, her daughter, approached the High Court challenging the detention, arguing that her mother was already facing trial under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and that invoking preventive detention amounted to "double punishment". She also stressed that the detaining authority ignored the fact that her mother had been granted conditional bail and was still in custody.
Petitioner's Arguments
Counsel for the petitioner, advocate Ch. Ravinder, argued that the detention order was "unconstitutional and excessive," since ordinary criminal law was already in motion. He contended that preventive detention should be reserved only for cases where a person’s actions disrupt public order, not merely violate the law.
He said, "The authorities cannot mechanically convert every NDPS case into a preventive detention matter. Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed at will."
He further added that the detaining authority ignored the conditions of bail such as regular police reporting and non-repetition of the offence which ensured supervision. According to him, this omission showed non-application of mind.
State's Response
Opposing the plea, Special Government Pleader Sri Swaroop Oorilla argued that the detenu was a "habitual offender" whose activities posed a serious threat to public order.
The government pointed out that the detaining authority had examined not only the case records but also reports from the chemical examiner and the Osmania Medical College about the harmful effects of ganja.
"Despite multiple chances and bails, the detenu continued the trade, affecting youth and disturbing social harmony," the state maintained.
Citing past Supreme Court precedents, the government emphasized that preventive detention can legally coexist with criminal prosecution.
"The aim is not punishment, but prevention," the pleader submitted.
Court's Observations
The bench noted that the purpose of preventive detention was "not to punish a person for past acts but to prevent future harm." Referring to earlier judgments such as Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal and State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Gawande, the judges clarified that ongoing trials under the NDPS Act do not bar preventive detention.
"The detaining authority’s satisfaction was not arbitrary," the court observed. "Repeated involvement in drug peddling and its devastating impact on public health, particularly among the youth, justify preventive detention."
The judges further underlined that public health forms an essential part of the constitutional vision.
"The wealth of a nation depends on the health of its citizens," the order stated. "Activities that endanger public health strike at the very root of social stability."
The court also noted the Advisory Board’s review, which found "sufficient cause" for detention after hearing the detenu’s family and investigating officers.
Decision
Finding no illegality or procedural lapse, the Telangana High Court upheld the detention order issued on 10 March 2025 and its subsequent confirmations in April. The bench concluded that the detaining authority’s action was justified and proportionate to the threat posed by the detenu’s conduct.
"The Court deems it appropriate to afford the detenu an opportunity to reform herself during the detention period," Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar said while pronouncing the judgment.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the detention for 12 months was confirmed. No order was made as to costs.
Case Title: Smt. Roshini Devi vs. The State of Telangana & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 12443 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 28 October 2025
Counsel for Petitioner: Sri Ch. Ravinder
Counsel for Respondents (State): Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Special Government Pleader
