LexROSHNI DEVI versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 128 : 2026 INSC 41 Roshni Devi v. The State of Telangana and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2026) 08 January 2026 [J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the order of preventive detention passed by the Magistrate and upheld by the High Court u/s.3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 valid in law. Headnotes† Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot- Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, [Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders] Act, 1986 – ss.2(a), 2(f), 3(2), 3(3) – Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.8(c) r/w s.20(b)(ii) (b) – Preventive detention – Daughter of detenu challenged detention order – Detention based on three criminal cases under NDPS Act alleging possession and peddling of ganja, and was found to be “drug offender” – Apprehension recorded that if released on bail she would continue illegal activities – Detention order upheld by High Court – Correctness: Held: Order of detention merely refers to three crimes registered against the detenu – 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 – 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 * Author [2026] 2 S.C.R. 129 Roshni Devi v. The State of Telangana and Others similar crimes that would be prejudicial to maintenance of public order would not be a sufficient ground to order her preventive detention – Order of detention does 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 – Mere reproduction of the expressions mentioned in s.2(a) in the order of detention would not be sufficient – 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, which is missing in the order of detention – Order of detention unsustainable and is quashed and set aside. [Paras 7-11] Case Law Cited Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2011 INSC 267 : [2011] 4 SCR 740; Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2023 INSC 734 : [2023] 11 SCR 520; Ameena Begum v. the State of Telangana and Others, 2023 INSC 788 : [2023] 11 SCR 958; Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [1984] 3 SCR 435 : (1984) 3 SCC 14 – referred to. List of Acts Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders [Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders] Act, 1986; Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. List of Keywords Preventive detention; Drug offender; Public order; Law and order; Subjective satisfaction; Extraneous considerations; Detaining authority; Bail; Judicial custody; Detention order; Possession and peddling of ganja; Illegal activities. 130 [2026] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2026 From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP No. 12443 of 2025 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant(s): Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Sr. Adv., Kumar Abhishek, Sunny Kumar, Vikash Pandey, Satyam Parashar, Devi Venkata Srikar Pagadala. Advs. for the Respondent(s): Kumar Vaibhaw, Ms. Devina Sehgal, Dhananjay Yadav, Ishaan Ojha. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Atul S. Chandurkar, J. 1. Lea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.