BANOTHU JAGAN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Banothu Jagan, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his brother-in-law, Nunavath Sudhakar, S/o. Mancha, aged about 27 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order, vide 45/PDCELL/CCRB/RCKD/2020, dated 30.09.2020, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate, the respondent No.3, wherein, 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 Sri. V.Raghunath, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Dr.B.Karthik Navayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of 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 solitary case relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining him and also in the case referred to as his antecedent criminal history. Though the detenu was granted bail by a learned single Judge of this Court in the solitary case relied by the detaining authority for preventively detaining him and also in the case which was referred to as his antecedent criminal history, but, the detenu is still detained in the prison by invoking the draconian preventive detention laws. The detenu is a AR Police Constable and if is not released from prison, his entire career in the police department would be ruined. There is absolutely no material on record to connect the detenu with the alleged offence. The detaining authority did not assign any reason for coming to a conclusion that the activities of the detenu are affecting the public order. Further, the case alleged against the detenu does not add up to "disturbing the public order". It is confined within the ambit and scope of the word "law and order". Since the offence alleged is under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'), the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the said special law. 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.