C NEELA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (LAW AND ORDER) DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detention of one Chirraboina Krishna Yadav @ Golla Kittu (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu") under 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 "the Act") is questioned by his wife in this writ petition.

(2.) In the impugned detention order, it is stated that the detenu was involved in 26 offences commencing from 1989 to 2012, that the detenu was externed from Hyderabad city for a period of six months, by order dated 22.08.2011 and that he was also detained under the provisions of the Act for a period of one year, by order dated 22.03.2013. It is further mentioned that after release of the detenu from preventive detention, he has committed five more offences. However, respondent No.2 in his order relied upon only two criminal cases i.e., Crime Nos.247 and 263 of 2016 on the file of Marredpally Police Station. Crime No.247 of 2016 was registered for offences under Sections 365, 195 (A), 465, 341, 342, 509, 506, 109 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The substance of the accusation against the detenu in the said case was that the associates of the detenu came to the house of the de facto complainant, M.Narsamma, threatened her to receive a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs for compromising the pending criminal case registered for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for the alleged murder of a person by name M.Sekhar, the son of the de facto complainant, and that the associates of the detenu have forcibly taken the signatures of the de facto complainant and also her another son by keeping a money bag containing Rs.5 Lakhs on their table. Crime No. 263 of 2016 was registered for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. on the complaint given by one of the sons of M.Narsamma alleging that the detenu has been threatening the de facto complainant to come for a compromise in the abovementioned murder case, or else he would implicate him and his family members in false criminal cases.

(3.) Mr. T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though respondent No.2 has referred to five criminal cases allegedly committed by the detenu after he was released from detention in 2014, he has relied upon only two criminal cases, both of which pertain to the same subject matter and while there is absolutely no proof in the allegations made in both the criminal cases, even assuming that the detenu was involved in threatening of the mother and son, who are the de facto complainants in Crime Nos.247 and 263 of 2016, such acts by themselves do not amount to disturbance to public order and at the most the alleged conduct of the detenu would create law and order problem for which he could be dealt with by invoking ordinary criminal laws. He has further argued that as the detenu was in judicial custody on the date of passing detention order, there was no likelihood of his being released and that respondent No.2 did not show awareness of this fact.