SHAIK SHABBIR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ of Habeas Corpus is filed challenging the detention order of Shaik @ Mohammed Saddam, S/o. Shabbir, dated 21.05.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Warangal, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertilizer 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 (Amendment Act No.13 of 2018) (for short 'the Act'), and as approved by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1158 dated 07.08.2020.

(2.) Heard Mr. Murtuza Ali Fauruqui, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Srikanth, the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenu was falsely implicated in a solitary offence registered in Cr.No.219 of 2019 under Section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act on the file of the Hasanparthy Police Station. The bail petition filed by the detenu was dismissed at the first instance by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. Thereafter, though the detenu was granted bail by the High Court in CRLP.No.842 of 2020 on 18.05.2020 and before the order was executed, the detaining authority issued the detention order on 21.05.2020 and executed it, while the detenu was still in remand under NDPS Act since 02.11.2019, which is arbitrary and illegal. Since the detenu was granted conditional bail, there cannot be any apprehension that he will commit similar offences. As such, there was no basis for the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that there is likelihood of detenu indulging in similar offences. Moreover, no cogent reasons are given before recording satisfaction for passing the detention order.