DONTHULA ANITHA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Donthula Anitha, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of her husband, Donthula Srinivas, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged about 45 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order, vide C.No.22/PDCELL/CCRB/RGM/2020, dated 08.10.2020, passed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, 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 and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (for short "P.D. Act") and the consequential confirmation order, dated 15.12.2020, vide G.O.Rt.No.1948, General Administration (Spl. (Law and Order)) Department, passed by the respondent No.1.

(2.) We have heard the submissions of Smt. Sujatha Kurapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.

(3.) 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 basing upon vague, irrelevant and non-existing grounds. Already criminal law was set into motion against the detenu. Hence, there is no need for the respondents to invoke draconian preventive detention laws against him. The allegation against the detenu is that he had indulged in a series of offences such as dishonestly cheating more than 75 farmers by purchasing the paddy and cotton from them and avoiding payments by issuing simple receipts and misappropriated huge amount of Rs.86,59,698/- for his personal use and lavish life and thus acted in a manner, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, apart from disturbing peace and tranquility in the society. In any event, the said allegation would not satisfy the word 'White Collar Offender'. The detenu is doing paddy business and he has not cheated the public as alleged. Due to lockdown, the detenu was not able to collect the amounts from his purchasers and pay to the farmers. Moreover, only two or three farmers have given complaint. In Crime Nos.113/2020 and 114/2020, the detenu was granted bail by the Courts concerned. In the impugned detention order, the detaining authority observed that since the detenu was granted bail in the aforesaid two crimes relied by the detaining authority, there is every likelihood of his release on bail in the remaining cases and committing similar offences. Every accused has the right to move the Court for bail when he/she is arrested under ordinary criminal law. He cannot be interdicted from moving the Court seeking bail by clamping an order of preventive detention. Further, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is illegal and tainted. Further, the offences 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 detenu is alleged to be a 'White Collar Offender', he 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 detenu under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The detention order is legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to set aside the same and allow the writ petition as prayed for.