MOHD ABDUL QAYYUM Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohd. Abdul Qayyum, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his nephew-Mohammed Abdul Wasei @ Wasi S/o. Mohd. Abdul Mannan, aged about 20 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order, dated 06.10.2020, passed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, and the subsequent confirmation order in G.O.Rt.No.1956, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, dated 17.12.2020, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, whereby, the detenu was detained 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, 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 & White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (for short "P.D. Act").

(2.) We have heard the submissions of Mr.Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned detention order is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, improper, against the principles of natural justice and has been passed in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. The detenu is falsely implicated in the three criminal cases relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining him. Admittedly, in all the three cases relied upon by the detaining authority, the detenu was granted bail by the Courts concerned. But, the detenu was again sent to judicial remand by invoking the draconian preventive detention laws. Already criminal law was set into motion against the detenu. Hence, there was no need to invoke the draconian preventive detention law against the detenu. Further, if the alleged activities of the detenu are said to be disturbing the communal harmony of the society, then the provisions of Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Communal Offenders Act, 1984, ought to have been invoked against the detenu. Further, the detenu had not committed similar offences after his release on bail in the three crimes relied by the detaining authority. Further, if there is any alleged violation of bail conditions by the detenu, nothing prevented the detaining authority to file an application before the Court concerned seeking cancellation of bail. Thus, there was no need to pass the impugned detention order against the detenu. Further, the subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority in passing the impugned detention order, is tainted. Further, the cases alleged against the detenu do not add up to "disturbing the public order". They are confined within the ambit and scope of the word "law and order". Since the offences alleged, as grave as they may be, are under the Penal Code, the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the Penal Code. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws. Hence, the impugned detention order tantamounts to colourable exercise of power. The detaining authority has to be extremely careful while passing the detention order, since the detention ipso facto adversely affects the fundamental right of personal liberty enjoyed by the people under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Government, without considering the various legal aspects, confirmed the impugned detention order in a mechanical manner. Thus, the impugned detention order and the consequential confirmation order are legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to set aside the same and allow the writ petition as prayed for.