BEGARI NARSIMULU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Begari Narsimulu, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his cousin, Begari Srikanth, S/o. Venkataiah, the detenu, challenging the detention order, dated 09.06.2020, passed by the respondent No.2-Collector and District Magistrate, Sangareddy District, 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") and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.1210, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 17.08.2020, passed by the respondent No.1-Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana.

(2.) We have heard the submissions of Sri P. Trivikram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Mallareddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the learned Additional Advocate General appearing 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, violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. Out of the five crimes relied by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu, only in two crimes statutory bail was granted to the detenu. Hence, the detenu continues to be in judicial custody. Without there being any cogent material on record, the detaining authority reached to the conclusion that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the near future and would indulge in similar illegal activities. Some of the material papers served on the detenu were not in the language known to the detenu. As such, the detenu is unable to know the contents of the same, so as to make an effective representation. The impugned detention order is passed on surmises and conjectures. By no stretch of imagination, the acts alleged against the detenu in the grounds of detention could affect public tranquility. Further, there must be close proximity between the criminal actions of the detenu and the detention order. 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. Thus, the detention order is legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to set aside the same and allow the Writ Petition as prayed for.