MOHAMMED SHANAWAZ Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Mohammed Shanawaz, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his sister-in-law, Harbhinder Kaur @ Simran Kaur @ Anika, the detenu, challenging the detention order vide No:62/PD-CELL/YB/2022, dtd. 17/12/2022, passed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, 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 (as amended by Act No.13 of 2018) (for short, 'Act 1 of 1986'), and the consequential confirmation order passed by the 1st respondent.

(2.) Heard Smt B.Mohana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Mujib Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the detenue is the sister-in-law of the petitioner, and impugned detention order, dtd. 17/12/2022, was passed by relying on a solitary crime registered against the detenue viz., Crime No.1338 of 2022 of Gachibowli Police Station of Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences under Ss. 370, 370(A) (2) IPC, Ss. 3,4,5 & 6 of PIT Act and Sec. 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Learned counsel had further contended that the detenue was granted bail by the competent criminal Court and the detenue was complying all the conditions and she has not violated any of the conditions of bail. Learned counsel had further contended that when special law under which detenue has been detained is taking care of the alleged crime committed by the detenue, the respondents were not justified in invoking the provisions under Sec. 3(2) of the Act 1 of 1986 and detained the detenu. Further, this Court, in similar circumstances, vide order, dtd. 23/9/2022, passed in W.P.No.30726 of 2022, set aside the detention order passed against the detenu therein on the ground that the detenu therein was detained basing on a solitary crime registered against him. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned detention order, dtd. 17/12/2022, by following the order, dtd. 23/9/2022, passed by this Court in W.P.No.30726 of 2022.