Back
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
A. Rajasheker Reddy and Dr. Shameem Akther, JJ.
Touphik – Petitioner
Versus
State of Telangana and 3 Others – Respondents
W.P.No.2234 of 2021
Decided on 28.4.2021
IMPORTANT POINT
Online frauds must be viewed seriously by Court as this will have adverse impact on e-commerce of our economy.
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 226 – 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, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 – Sections 2(x) and 3(3) – Habeas Corpus Petition – Preventive detention – Four crimes registered against detenu under Sections 66-C and 66-D of IT Act, and Sections 419 and 420 of IPC – Detention order has been approved by Government – Modus operandi of detenu is that he along with his associates placed an advertisement on an online social media advertisement platform, for selling of two and four wheelers – When prospective purchasers contacted them on given phone number, they falsely introduce themselves as army personnel, and after gaining confidence, they used to fix sale price of vehicle – Thereafter, on one or other pretext, they extract money, more than agreed sale price through Google pay and bank transfers etc., and after receiving substantial amounts, they used to switch off their mobile phones, thus cheating people who transferred amounts – Not only individual victims of crime are affected, but people who resort to making purchases through online advertisement platforms, will be affected, since by coming to know these fraudulent activities, they will be under terrific fear and panic, thinking that whether online advertisement firm chosen by them for making any purchase, is genuine or not, and whether they will receive products for which they have transferred amounts – If people come to know alleged fraudulent activities of people like detenu, then they may not go for such online purchases which results in affecting business activities of genuine firms and this will have an adverse impact on e-commerce of our economy – Out of four crimes, detenu was granted bail in two cases and he is making efforts for getting bail in other two cases – Detenu is a non-local – Commissioner of Police, in order to prevent detenu from indulging in similar activities and to protect society, passed impugned order of preventive detention by recording his subjective satisfaction and no grounds are made out for interfering with same – Impugned order of detention cannot be interfered with – Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 15, 19, 21, 24, 25 and 26)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER
A. Rajasheker Reddy, J.—The detenu is Vajib Kham s/o Jamshed Khan. The 2nd respondent – Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, taking into consideration the four crimes registered against detenu in Cr.Nos.535/2020, 877/2020, 943/2020 and 1047/2020 under Sections 66-C and 66-D of IT Act, and Sections 419 and 420 of IPC on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, and holding that he is satisfied that detenu is habitually cheating people along with his associates in an organized manner, to acquire huge and illegal money in the limits of Hyderabad Police Commissionerate by giving false advertisements on OLX website indicating that vehicles were for sale by misrepresenting that he was working with Indian Army; that he is a ‘White Collar Offender’ as defined in Clause (x) of Section 2 of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986); that he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; and that ordinary law under which he is booked is not sufficient to deal with his illegal activities, unless he is detained under the detention laws; passed the impugned order of detention vide SB(1)No.250/PD-7/HYD/2020 dated 24.11.2020 under sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Act No.1 of 1986.
2. The said detention order has been approved by the Government under sub-section 3 of Section 3 of Act 1 of 1986 vide G.O.Rt.No.1872 General Administration Spl. (Law and Order) Department dated 3.12.2020 and subsequently confirmed the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.264 General Administration Spl. (Law and Order) Department dated 2.2.2021.
3. Assailing the same, the petitioner, who claims to be the brother-in-law of the detenu, filed the present writ petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 3rd respondent to produce the detenu, and to set aside the detention order.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 2nd respondent passed the impugned order of detention without application of mind. The four crimes, relied on by the detaining authority, are all foisted cases, and there is no incriminating material available against the detenu and based on the confessional statements recorded by the police, detention order has been passed, and the same cannot be sustained.
5. That, the acts alleged against the detenu does not affect the public order, and they are in no manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and ordinary law of the land would be sufficient to deal with them. But the detaining authority by taking the ‘law and order’ problem, as ‘public order’, passed the preventive detention order, and the same is illegal, and arbitrary.
6. That, the cases registered against the detenu are still under investigation and no charge sheets are filed, and the trial court granted conditional bails in two cases and in other two cases, bail applications are pending, and on release from jail, if the detenu violates any bail conditions or indulges in similar activities, the prosecution can seek for cancellation of bails, and there is no justification in invoking the preventive detention laws.
7. That, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction, the 2nd respondent has not recorded any reasons, and this amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. That the detaining authority has to carefully analyze the material on record, and after considering the material in an objective manner, has to invoke the preventive detention laws. In the present case, there is no such objective assessment, and the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner, thereby depriving the personal liberty guaranteed to the detenu
