JALGAM LAVANYA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt.Jalgam Lavanya, the sister of the detenu, Chandupatla Santhosh Reddy, 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, Drug-Offenders, 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 in Rc.No.C1/186/2019, dated 22.02.2019, and confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.900, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order) Department, dated 26.03.2019, alleging that the detenu has been indulging in series of grave and dangerous offences such as murder, extortion, criminal intimidation, etc., creating large scale fear and panic among the general public, and thereby 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 during the years 2018 and 2019, the detenu was involved in four similar offences viz., (1) crime No.47/2018 of Kagaznagar Town PS, (2) crime No.179/2018 of Kagaznagar Town PS, (3) crime No.24/2019 of Kagaznagar Town PS, and (4) crime No.25/2019 of Kagaznagar Town PS.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the detenu was falsely implicated in the above referred cases. Even though, he got bail in crime Nos.47/2018 and 179/2018 and likely to get bail in crime Nos.24/2019 and 25/2019, the detenu is likely to be continued in judicial custody in view of 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.