KASARLA RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Proc.C.No.802/WRC/CSB-XI/2018, dated 19.07.2018, which is confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.2126, dated 10.10.2018 against one Kasarla Ram Kumar @ Nani, S/o.Venkata Swamy (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The petitioner is the brother of the detenue. On 19.07.2018, the 2nd respondent passed detention order against detenue under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1986') detaining him in Central Prison, Warangal on the allegation that he involved in brutal murder of Thaithala Sambaiah in the limits of Warangal Police Commissionerate and thereby creating fear and panic among the people, which adversely affected the maintenance of public order in the limits of Warangal Police Commissionerate. The detention order of the 2nd respondent was approved by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.1458, dated 25.07.2018, which is confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.2126, dated 10.10.2018 after receipt of report and opinion from the Advisory Board. Though a case in Cr.No.142 of 2018 of Police Station Inthezargunj was registered under Sections 120-B, 143, 148, 364, 342, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC Sections 3(2)(V) SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 against three persons on the complaint given by Thaithala Swapna, who is the wife of the deceased Thaithala Sambaiah, the name of the detenue was not found in the same, but he was falsely implicated in the case basing on his confession and that he was arrested on 28.04.2018 by the Police, Inthezargunj Police Station. The first bail application was dismissed on 12.06.2018 and second bail application was dismissed on 10.07.2018. As on the date of the detention order, no bail application was pending, as such, the question of indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order does not arise.

(3.) Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and justified the reasons for passing detention order against detenue.