MALLADA K. SRI RAM Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mallada Sri Ram, the petitioner, filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his brother, Mallada Gangadhar, S/o. late Sathyam, aged 43 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order, vide SB(I) No.102/PD-1/HYD/2021, dtd. 19/5/2021, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, the respondent No.2, whereby, 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 and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (for short "PD Act"), and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.1917, General Administration (Spl. (Law and Order)) Department, dtd. 24/8/2021, passed by respondent No.1.

(2.) We have heard the submissions of Sri Seshagiri Rao Yalamanchili, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. Manoj Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of 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. Both the cases relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu have been foisted against the detenu. Already criminal law was set into motion against the detenu. Further, the alleged criminal activities of the detenu, in any event, would not satisfy the word 'white collar offender '. In both the cases relied by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu, the detenu was granted conditional bail by the Courts concerned and after release on bail, the detenu neither violated the bail conditions nor involved in any other crime(s). Hence, there was no need to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws against the detenu, since the detenu would be well within the surveillance of police. In case the detenu had violated the bail conditions, the sponsoring authority could have taken steps for cancellation of bail. Instead, the sponsoring authority gave a requisition to the detaining authority for passing the detention order. The detaining authority has not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, while passing the impugned detention order. Further, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu is vague and not based on any material. 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 ".