BANKA SNEHA SHEELA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Banka Sneha Sheela, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of her husband, Banka Ravikanth, S/o. Erraiah, aged about 34 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order, vide 47/PD-CELL/CYB/2020, dtd. 28/9/2020, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, the respondent No.2, wherein, the detenu was detained under Sec. 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 Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Srikanth Reddy, learned 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. All the five cases relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu have been foisted against the detenu at the instigation of the complainants therein to extract money and there is no incriminating material against the detenu in the said cases. 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 contents of the complaints in the cases relied upon by the detaining authority indicate that the detenu collected huge money under the guise of investing the same in stock market and promised good returns, but there is no mention in the said complaints that the detenu had cheated the public. Hence, the impugned detention order is unsustainable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Collecting huge money from public for investing in same in stock market by promising good returns, in any event, would not satisfy the word 'White Collar Offender'. The detenu is a Stock Market Trader and hails from a respectable family. All the criminal cases relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu are at preliminary stage and charge-sheet is not filed in any case. Further, in all the five cases relied by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu, the detenu was granted bail by the Courts concerned. But, the detenu is again detained in the prison by invoking the draconian preventive detention laws. Further, the detaining authority did not assign any reason for coming to a conclusion that the activities of the detenu are disturbing peace and tranquility in society and affecting the public 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 detenu is alleged to be a 'White Collar Offender', 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.