SINGAM LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this habeas corpus writ petition on behalf of her husband, Singam Venkateshwarlu, challenging the detention order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Warangal, the respondent No.2, and the conformation order dated 04.07.2019 passed by Principal Secretary to Government (Poll), the respondent No. 1. By the former order, Singam Venkateshwarlu 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 ("the Act", for short). By the latter order, the respondent No.1 has confirmed the detention order of the detenu.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the police had registered two different cases against the detenu under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act ('the NDPS Act', for short) during the year 2019. Crime No.77/2019 was registered against the detenu under Section 8(C) r/w 20 of the NDPS Act on the file of Mills Colony. Crime No.56/2019 was also registered against the detenu for offence under Section 8(C) r/w 20 of the NDPS Act on the file of Hanamkonda Police Station. Relying on these two criminal cases, the Commissioner of Police, Warangal, passed a detention order on 20.05.2019 against the detenu. According to the respondent No.2, since the detenu was peddling "Ganja", he falls under the definition of "drug offender" as defined in Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act. Since he has been repeatedly violating the provisions of the NDPS Act, since peddling of Ganja adversely affects the youth, his conduct has become prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Moreover, while in Crime No.77/2019 allegedly "Ganja" weighing 2 kg 200 gms was recovered, and in Crime No.56 of 2019, 2.5 Kgs of "Ganja" was recovered from the possession of detenu and his associate. Thus, the amount of "Ganja" being carried by the detenu was only increasing. Thereby, making the detenu as a potential threat to the maintenance of public order. Lastly, the detenu was granted bail in the two cases registered against him. Therefore, in order to prevent the detenu from disturbing the public order, the said preventive detention order was passed by the respondent No.2. The said preventive detention order was subsequently confirmed by the respondent No.1 by its order dated 04.07.2019. Hence, the present habeas corpus petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr.A.Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this court: -