JUDGMENT

A.Abhishek Reddy, J. - Mrs.Syed Raheemunnisa, the mother of the detenu viz., Syed Khaja Pasha, 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 C.No.843/WRC/CSB-XI/2019, dated 30.09.2019, and confirmed by the 1st respondent, vide G.O.Rt.No.3080, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order) Department, dated 26.11.2019, alleging that the detenu has been habitually committing robberies/snatching of cell phones and net cash from the persons moving lonely on the public roads and thereby creating large scale fear and panic among the people, and thus 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 in the year 2019, the detenu was involved in four similar offences viz., (1) crime Nos.258/2019, (2) crime No.290/2019 of Inthezargunj PS, (3) crime No.121/2019, (4) crime No.122/2019 of Geesugonda PS, and (5) crime No.125/2019 of Sangem PS.

2. 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 one case and likely to get bail in remaining cases, he is likely to be continued in judicial custody due to 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.

4. Mr.A.Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that relying only on five cases registered against the detenu in the year 2019, the impugned detention order is passed. He further submits that the alleged cases do not amount to 'disturbing the public order'. They are confined within the ambit and scope of the word 'law and order'. Since the offences alleged are under the Indian Penal Code, the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the Indian Penal Code. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws. Hence, the impugned order tantamounts to the colourable exercise power. Thus, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable.

5. On the other hand, Mr.S.Sharath Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader, pleads that only in crime No.290/2019 the detenu was granted bail and in remaining cases, his bail applications were dismissed by the concerned Court. The series of crimes allegedly committed by the detenu were sufficient to cause a feeling of large scale fear and panic among the people thereby adversely affecting the public order. Since the modus of crime is committing robberies/snatchings targeting the people lonely moving on the roads, it has created sufficient panic and fear in the minds of the general public. Therefore, the detaining authority was legally justified in passing the impugned detention order. Hence, the learned Special Government Pleader has supported the impugned order.

6. In view of the submissions made by both the sides, the point that rises for determination in this Writ Petition is:

"Whether the detention order, dated 30.09.2019, passed by the 2nd respondent, and the confirmation order, dated 26.11.2019, passed by the 1st respondent are liable to be set aside or not?"

POINT:

7. In catena of decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have held that there is a vast difference