MANOJ SAMRAT Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the four writ petitions are disposed by this common order as they pertain to the same crime. The writ petitioners, who are the detenus herein, have filed the present writ petitions, challenging the Detention Orders passed by the 2nd respondent, who by exercising the powers conferred under Section 3 (2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, 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 (in short, 'the Act'), had issued proceedings No.33/PD-CELL/CCRB/RCKD/2019, No.32/PD-CELL/CCRB/ RCKD/2019, No.35/PD-CELL/CCRB/RCKD/2019, and No.34/PD- CELL/CCRB/RCKD/2019, respectively, dated 01.10.2019, alleging that the detenus viz., Manoj Samrat, Rahul Maaji @ Nabhun Maji, Dhaya Nidhi Maji and Durga Samrat, engaged himself in the unlawful act by acting as a member of the gang and committed gruesome gang rape on one Smt.Purnima Maaji, and thereby caused harm, panic, a feeling of insecurity among the innocent general public, and thus acted in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, apart from disturbing peace and tranquility in the society. The ground on which the impugned detention orders are passed by the 2nd respondent is that during the year 2019 the detenus were involved in Crime No.185/2019 of Maheshwaram PS registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 (D) of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they were falsely implicated in the above referred cases. Even though, the detenus are likely to get bail in the above referred case, they are likely to be continued in judicial custody due to passing of the impugned detention orders and the same are passed only to see that the detenus do not come out of the jail. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order.