IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Individual cases can be dealt with by criminal justice system – There is no need for detaining authority to invoke draconian preventive detention laws against an individual.
(2) Detaining authority cannot be permitted to subvert, supplant or substitute punitive law of land, by ready resort to preventive detention.

ORDER

G. Sri Devi, J.—The present Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by Smt. R.S. Sangeetha, seeking a direction to the respondents to produce her husband P.Prem Kumar, S/o. R.Parthasarathy, now detained in 3rd respondent’s Prison, Hyderabad, before this Court and to order his release forthwith after declaring that his detention is illegal and invalid and set aside the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide P.D. Act No.42/PD-CELL/CYB/2021, dated 24.04.2021, and consequential orders of the 1st respondent approving the detention vide G.O.Rt.No.1017, dated 03.05.2021.

2. The facts which led to filing of the present Writ is as under:—

The detenu is Prem Kumar, S/o. R. Parthasarathy. The 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, taking into consideration the two crimes registered against detenu in Crime No.124 of 2021 of Gachibowli Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 4, 5, 6 read with Section 3, 2 (c) of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Crime No.183 of 2021 of Ramachandrapuram Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 4, 5, 6 read with Section 3, 2 (c) of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and having satisfied that the detenu has been indulging in acts of cheating the gullible public in an organized manner in the limits of Cyberabad Police Commissionerate and other areas by making the innocent people to join in Indus Viva Health Sciences Private Limited Company by way of selling the products as a big business opportunity and once the members are joined, they are pressurized to join other members in 1:1 ratio in order to earn commissions/easy money, thereby amassed huge amounts in an organized way by running illegal money circulation schemes in the guise of direct selling entity, selling products to students and unemployed youth in large; that he is a “White Collar Offender” as defined in Clause (x) of Section 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 and While Collar of Financial Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar of Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); that he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; and that ordinary law under which he was booked is not sufficient to curb his dangerous and unlawful activities for which he shall be detained under the detention laws, passed the impugned order of detention vide P.D. Act No.42/PD-CELL/CYB/2021, dated 24.04.2021 under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act No.1 of 1986.

3. The said detention order has been approved by the Government under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act vide G.O.Rt.No.1017, General Administration (Spl.(Law & Order)) Department, dated 03.05.2021.

4. Assailing the same, the petitioner, who claims to be the wife of the detenu, filed the present writ of Habeas Corpus. It is the case of the petitioner that the detenu was falsely implicated in the above referred cases. Even though the detenu was granted bail in the above referred cases, he continued to be in judicial custody due to passing of the impugned detention order and that the same is passed only to see that the detenu does not come out of the jail.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that relying only on the cases registered against the detenu in the year 2021, the impugned detention order is passed. It is further submitted that while pas