IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive Detention – Personal liberty of accused cannot be sacrificed on altar of preventive detention, merely because a person is implicated in a criminal proceeding.

ORDER (COMMON)

Dr. Justice Shameem Akther, J.—Though the petitioners in these five Writ Petitions are different, since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same and since the detenus in these writ petitions are the accused in the same crime, all these Writ Petitions are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P. No.31745 of 2022 is filed by Mrs. K. Mamatha, who is the wife of the detenu, namely Kandela Srinivas, W.P.No.31752 of 2022 is filed by Mrs. Gangajala, who is the wife of the detenu, namely Vanam Shekhar, W.P. No. 31754 of 2022 is filed by Mrs. Jamuna, who is the wife of the detenu, namely Vanam @ Kedari Durgaiah @ Chinna Durgaiah, W.P.No.31755 of 2022 is filed by Mrs. V. Sarojana, who is the wife of the detenu, namely Vanam Chinna Gangaiah and W.P.No.31765 of 2022 is filed by Mr. Pochaiah, who is the father of the detenu, namely Vanam Durgaiah @ Durga Prasad, challenging the separate detention orders of the even date, dated 05.07.2022, passed by respondent No.2-Collector and District Magistrate, Jagtial District, vide Rc.No.C1/724-1/2022, Rc.No.C1/724-5/2022, Rc.No.C1/724-3/2022, Rc.No.C1/724-2/2022 and Rc.No.C1/724-4/2022 respectively, and the consequential confirmation orders of the even date, dated 06.09.2022, passed by the Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, vide G.O. Rt. Nos.1702, 1706, 1704, 1703 and 1705 respectively. Vide impugned detention orders, the respective detenus were detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986).

3. We have heard the submissions of Smt. B. Mohana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions, Sri S. Mujib Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.

4. The background facts of the case, in brief, is that by relying on a solitary crime registered against the detenus in these writ petitions in Crime No.22 of 2022 of Jagtial Rural Police Station, Jagtial District, registered for the offences under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of IPC, the respondent No.2-Collector and District Magistrate, Jagtial District, passed the impugned detention orders of the even date, dated 05.07.2022. According to the respondent No.2, the detenus are ‘goondas’, as they have indulged in brutal murder of three persons belonging to one family, in broad daylight, in public place, by inflicting fatal injuries with spears and knives in the limits of Jagtial Rural Police Station, creating large scale fear and panic among the general public, thereby adversely affecting the maintenance of public order, the impugned detention orders of the even date, dated 05.07.2022 were passed, which were confirmed by the Government by the orders of the even date, dated 06.09.2022. Hence, these writ petitions before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions vehemently contended that the impugned detention orders are illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, improper, against the principles of natural justice and has been passed in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. The impugned detention orders were passed basing on a solitary crime. The alleged criminal activities of the detenus, in any event, would not satisfy the word ‘goonda’, as defined under 2(g) of the Telangana Act 1 of 1986. The detaining authority has not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, while passing the impugned detention orders. All the detenus were granted conditional statutory/mandatory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., by the Court concerned in the solitary crime relied by the detaining authority and the detenus are complying the conditions imposed in the statutory/mandatory bail order. F