VIANALA SHANTHI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detention order vide proceedings No.26/PD Cell/CCRB/RCKD/2020 dated 23.06.2020 passed against Vainala Bikshapathi S/o. Saraiah by the 3rd respondent, Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissioner ate, 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 confirmed by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.942 dated 28.05.2020, are challenged in this Writ of Habeas Corpus as being illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) Heard Dr. P.B. Karthik Navayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu is falsely branded as immoral traffic offender in Cr.No.350 of 2020 of Neredmet Police Station registered under Section 370(A) IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1986. The activities of the detenu do not affect public order. There is no material to substantiate that the detenu is indulging in women trafficking, trapping of innocent girls and forcing them into prostitution in the guise of providing jobs. The detention order was passed mechanically based on solitary offence and there is no material to come to the conclusion that detenu has been acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order. Though first crime was registered in the year 2014 and second crime was registered in the year 2020, there is no nexus between the two crimes. On the basis of one solitary case, the detention order could not have been passed.