P. RAMBABU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With a request to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereby to issue an order in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus declaring the order, vide G.O.Rt.No.1840, General Administration (Spl. Law and Order) Department, dtd. 18/8/2021, whereby the order of detention dtd. 5/6/2021 was confirmed, as illegal, unconstitutional and violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, the petitioner, projecting the grievance of his brother- Punem Raju, approached this Court.

(2.) The facts of the case and the grounds urged in nutshell are that Punem Raju (hereinafter be referred as "the detenu", for brevity) is the brother of the petitioner and he was detained invoking 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, fertiliser 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, (hereinafter be referred as "the P.D. Act", for brevity) on the ground that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that, to prevent him from further indulging in such type of activities, his detention is necessary. It is stated that the order of detention dtd. 5/6/2021 was passed in a mechanical manner and the allegation that the detenu will be causing public disorder is without any basis and indeed, the detenu was granted bail, in the crimes registered against him, by the Criminal Courts. It is further stated that the Police concerned failed to get the real culprits booked and the detenu is involved in false cases and the detention of the detenu is nothing but violation of his fundamental rights, more particularly the right to freedom of life and liberty and therefore, the detention order is not maintainable. It is further stated that the allegation of respondent No.2 is that the detenu is involved in 12 criminal cases, but those cases are based upon a confessional statement alleged to have been given by the detenu before a Police officer and therefore, the said confessional statement is invalid and on that ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. It is also stated that the impugned order was passed without serving complete material to the detenu and thus, the said order of detention is vitiated under law and further, the offences alleged to have been committed by the detenu do not fall under the criteria which requires detention and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Heard the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for learned Additional Advocate General. Also, gone through the contents of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2