Caught 4 times with toxic liquor, he got bail each time. Then the collector stepped in.

He was caught four times carrying liquor that chemical tests said was unfit for humans. Each time, he walked out on bail.

Between January 2021 and March 2022, Pesala Nookaraju was arrested near the Ambedkar statue in N.S. Venkatapuram village, Kakinada District, with illicitly distilled liquor. Four separate FIRs (written complaints that start a police investigation) were registered at the SEB Station in Tuni. Each time, the chemical examiner's report — a typed sheet bearing a red stamp — came back with the same finding: the liquor was unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Each time, a court granted him bail, the order a single page signed in haste.

Then the District Collector stepped in.

On August 25, 2022, the Collector ordered Nookaraju's preventive detention (a civil order that locks a person up not for a past crime, but to stop them from committing future harm) under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 — known simply as the AP Dangerous Activities Act. The State Government confirmed the order within 12 days, by September 1, 2022. By October 18, 2022, the government had issued a formal order directing that Nookaraju be detained for 12 months, under Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Act.

Nookaraju challenged his detention through a habeas corpus petition (a court order that asks: where is this person, and is their detention legal) in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. A Division Bench dismissed his petition on March 7, 2023. He appealed to the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2304 of 2023.

When the chemical report became a public order problem

Nookaraju's lawyers raised four arguments. First, they said the proviso to Section 3(2) of the AP Act limits detention to three months unless an Advisory Board reviews the case — and a precedent called Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of AP (2015) had said exactly that. Second, they argued the detention was based on "stale" FIRs — the oldest was from January 6, 2021, the detention order came on August 25, 2022 — meaning there was no "proximate nexus" between the acts and the order. Third, they said selling illicit liquor was a law-and-order problem, not a public order problem, and preventive detention requires a threat to public order. Fourth, they called a 12-month detention disproportionate.

The State countered with a simpler argument. The chemical examiner's reports showed the liquor was dangerous to public health. A bootlegger who repeatedly sells poison to the public creates a situation that goes beyond individual crime — it threatens the health of an entire community. That, the State said, is precisely the kind of activity the AP Act was designed to stop.

The three-month trap that wasn't

The core of the appeal turned on a single question: does the proviso to Section 3(2) of the AP Act limit the detention period to three months, or does it limit the delegation period — the time during which a District Magistrate can exercise the detention power on behalf of the State Government?

Section 3(1) gives the State Government the power to order preventive detention. Section 3(2) allows the government to delegate that power to District Magistrates and Commissioners of Police. The proviso says: "no order of detention shall remain in force for more than three months" unless the Advisory Board confirms it. The Cherukuri Mani judgment had read this as a three-month cap on the detention itself.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

The bench — Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra — held that the proviso to Section 3(2) relates to the period of delegation, not the period of detention. The three-month limit applies to how long a District Magistrate can exercise the delegated power without the government stepping in. Once the State Government confirms the detention — which it did here within 12 days, by September 1, 2022 — the three-month proviso is no longer relevant. The maximum detention period under the Act is 12 months, set by Section 13.

The court explicitly overruled Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of AP on this point, calling it an incorrect interpretation of the law. The judgment in Cherukuri Mani — reported as (2015) 13 SCC 722 — no longer states the correct position on Section 3(2).

Why the liquor was a public order threat

On the second argument — that selling illicit liquor is a law-and-order issue, not a public order issue — the court drew a clear line. If the liquor is merely illicit (unlicensed, untaxed), it may be a law-and-order problem. But if the liquor is dangerous to public health — as the chemical examiner's reports established here — it becomes an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under Section 2(a) of the AP Act.

The court cited Harpreet Kaur v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 2 SCC 177, where the Supreme Court had held that the sale of adulterated or noxious liquor affects the health of the community at large and therefore falls within the realm of public order. The same logic applied to Nookaraju. A man who repeatedly sells poison is not just breaking the law — he is endangering the public.

On the staleness argument, the court noted that the four FIRs spanned a period of about 14 months, with the most recent arrest on March 9, 2022 — just five months before the detention order of August 25, 2022. The detaining authority — the District Collector — had considered the entire chain of events and formed a subjective satisfaction that Nookaraju was likely to continue his activities. The court said it was not for the judiciary to second-guess that satisfaction on an objective basis, citing Secretary to Govt of Tamil Nadu v. Kamala (2018) 5 SCC 322 and T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu (1990) 2 SCC 456.

What the Constitution requires

The court also addressed the constitutional dimension. Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution requires that no person be detained beyond three months unless an Advisory Board confirms the detention. The court clarified that this three-month period relates to the time before the Advisory Board reports, not to the total period of detention. Once the Board confirms the detention, the government can continue it for the maximum period allowed by the statute — in this case, 12 months under Section 13 of the AP Act.

The procedural safeguards had been followed. The detention order was served on Nookaraju. The grounds of detention were communicated. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board, which confirmed the detention. The government then issued the formal order for 12 months on October 18, 2022. There was no constitutional violation. The court also noted that Article 21 — the right to life and personal liberty — was not infringed because the procedure established by law had been strictly followed.

The court examined the chain of precedents carefully. Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1952 SC 27) established the principle that preventive detention laws must be strictly construed. Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1974 Cri.L.J. 1479) drew the distinction between law and order and public order. State of Maharashtra v. Balu (2021) 13 SCC 454 and Sangala Kondamma (Collector & DM v.) (2005) 3 SCC 666 were cited on the scope of subjective satisfaction. None of these precedents helped Nookaraju's case, the court held.

Why this matters for practitioners

For lawyers handling preventive detention cases, the key takeaway is this: the three-month limit in Section 3(2) of the AP Act is not a detention cap. It is a delegation cap. If the State Government confirms the detention within the delegation period, the detention can run for the full 12 months allowed by the Act.

THE PLAY: When challenging a preventive detention order under the AP Dangerous Activities Act, do not rely on Cherukuri Mani for a three-month detention limit — the Supreme Court has overruled that interpretation, and the clock now runs from the government's confirmation, not from the delegation.

The court found no error, much less an error of law, in the High Court's judgment. The appeal was dismissed. Nookaraju would serve his 12 months.

Four times he was caught. Four times he walked free. The fifth time, he didn't walk at all.