GIRISH KUMAR MAKHIJA Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions arise out of common set of facts. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together. W.P. No.42090 of 2015 is filed by one Girish Kumar Makhija, father of Mr. Puneet Mukhija (for short, detenu No.1), and W.P. No.42092 of 2015 is filed by one Jaspreet Kaur, wife of Mr. Manish Tandon (for short, detenu No.2). Both these writ petitions are filed for issue of habeas corpus for the release of the detenus after quashing separate but identical detention orders dt.17.12.2015 of the two detenus. The facts

(2.) The detenus are residents of New Delhi. Detenu No.2 is allegedly the proprietor/promoter of Dial Easy Network Private Limited and M/s. Union Value Services Private Limited. Detenu No.1 is the Floor Manager of M/s. Dial Easy Network Private Limited. Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad, has registered as many as five cheating cases, vide Crime No.303 of 2015, 306 of 2015 and 335 of 2015 for the offences under Section 66(C) and (D) of the Information and Technology Act, 2008 (for short, the IT Act), and Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and Crime Nos.184 of 2015 and 190 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 417, 419 and 420 of IPC and Section 66(C) and (D) of the IT Act. The allegations in these cases are almost common. It was alleged that the complainants have received frequent telephone calls from the tele -callers of M/s. Union Value Services Private Limited, represented by detenu No.2 and his associates, stating that they will provide loan of Rs.10,00,000/ - on low rate of interest and insisted them to take two insurance policies towards the sanctioned loan amount and to pay some amount towards processing fee, EMI charges, insurance charges etc., and believing their version, the complainants had taken insurance polices and they have made payments varying between Rs.1,20,000/ - and 2,38,232/ -, by way of money transfer to different account numbers provided by the staff of the detenus, that after encashing the amounts detenu No.2 and his associates changed the sim cards of their staff and thereby delinked them with the complainants. Thus, the grievance of the complainants is that the detenus have cheated them. Based on registration of the above mentioned crimes, respondent No.2 passed detention orders dt.17.12.2015 invoking the provisions of sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug -offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, 1986 Act).

(3.) In the orders of detention, it is inter alia stated that the detenus have been indulging in cheating the innocent people on the pretext of providing personal loans, that therefore they fall within the definition of goonda under clause (g) of Section 2 of the 1986 Act, that with a view to prevent the detenus from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, respondent No.2 is satisfied that the provisions of Act 1986 should be invoked to detain them and that the ordinary law under which they were booked is not sufficient to deal with the illegal activities of the detenus. The grounds of detention referred to Crime No.303 of 2015 registered on the complaint of one Mr. Syed Hussain, R/o.H.No.17 -3 - 3/1/93, Azmath Nagar, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad; Crime No.306 of 2015 registered on the complaint of Mr. Nischal Narender Prasad, S/o. Rajender Prasad, R/o.5 -9 -884, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad; and Crime No.335 of 2015 registered on the complaint of Mr. S. Ramu, S/o. S. Balram, R/o.13 - 4 -735/3, Jain Mandi Lane, Karwan, Hyderabad. It is also mentioned in the grounds of detention that the detenus were arrested on 20.11.2015 in connection with Crime No.306 of 2015 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad, and remanded to judicial custody, that they have filed separate petitions on 14.12.2015 before the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Kukatpally, in connection with Crime No.190 of 2015, that there was genuine possibility of release of the detenus and that on being released they may further indulge in the activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order. It was further alleged that the series of offences constitutes acts of goondaism committed by the detenus creating terror and fear in the minds of the general public and thereby they are disturbing public order and tranquillity in the area and that they have been causing a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public on a regular basis, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, adversely affecting the peace in the localities.