QAMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Qamar, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of her son, Mohammed Aslam @ Ashu, S/o. Late Salam, aged 22 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order, dated 11.12.2020, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, the respondent No.2, and the subsequent confirmation order in G.O.Rt.No.389, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, dated 18.02.2021, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, the respondent No.1, 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 Smt. G.Jaya 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. 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. Further, the grounds on which the impugned detention order is passed are vague, stale and remote. All the three cases relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu are at threshold and the guilt of the detenu is not yet been proved. Hence, the conclusion reached by the detaining authority that the detenu is a habitual offender, is without any basis. 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. 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 and special law, the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the Penal Code and 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 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.