MD. MARUF Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ of Habeas Corpus is filed challenging the order of detention dtd. 19/11/2019 passed by the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate (Executive), Rachakonda Commissionerate, and as approved by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.3139 dtd. 29/11/2019, whereunder the detenu, Aftab Alam, S/o. Mahmuddin, was detained under the provisions 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'), holding that the criminal activities of the detenu fall within the ambit of Sec. 2(g) of the Act of 1986 to term him as Goonda and that the detenu is habitually indulging in criminal activities, which is a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of peace order and enforcement of ordinary penal laws could not prevent the detenu from indulging in such activities.

(2.) Ms. R. Sowmya Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no proximity and nexus between the cases referred to in the detention order. For, the activities do not come within the definition of Sec. 2(g) of the Act. Hence, the detenu cannot be equated as 'Goonda'. Furthermore, the cases shown in the grounds of detention do not come under public order. She further submits that the detention order is passed in a mechanical manner; the same has been approved by the Government. Even the sponsoring authority has not placed the bail petitions and orders before the detaining authority.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. S. Sharat Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, submits the detention order was passed treating the detenu as 'Goonda', as he was engaged in committing burglary in jewellery shops/pan shops habitually within the Rachakonda Commissionerate. He, thus, created panic in the minds of general public and businessmen. Such activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Moreover, preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation, which may or may not relate to an offence, and it does not overlap with prosecution. Since the detention order is based on sound reasoning, the adequacy of material on which the said satisfaction purports to rest, cannot be examined in a Court of law. Since the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was essential to pass the detention order against the detenu.