MAHAMMED FRUSHID Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt.Mahammed Frushid, the mother of the detenu, Mohd. Yousuf, has filed the present Writ Petition, challenging the Detention Order passed by the 2nd respondent, who by exercising the powers conferred under Section 3 (2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, DrugOffenders, 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 (in short, 'the Act'), vide proceedings No.41/PD-CELL/CYB/2019, dated 09.08.2019, and confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.2133, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order) Department dated 14.08.2019, alleging that Mohd. Yousuf has been engaging himself in unlawful acts of goondaism and committing the property offences such as robberies, in an organized way, and thereby creating large scale fear and panic among the people, and thus acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The ground on which the detention order is passed by the 2nd respondent is that in the years 2018 and 2019, the detenu was involved in four similar offences viz., (1) crime No.564/2018 of Madhapur PS, (2) crime No.947/2018 of Madhapur PS, (3) crime No.963/2018 of Madhapur PS, and (4) crime No.134/2019 of Sanathnagar PS.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the detenu was falsely implicated in the above referred cases. Even though, the detenu got bail in all the above referred cases, he continued to be in judicial custody, due to passing of the impugned detention order and the same is passed only to see that the detenu does not come out of the jail. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order.