Point of Law: Detention order – Justified - Cases registered under the NDPS Act - Drug-offender – Exclusion of two criminal cases registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 324, 448 r/w 34 of IPC, which were referred to as antecedent criminal history of the detenu only.

ORDER:

SHAMEEM AKTHER, J.

Mrs. Sandhya Singh, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of her husband, Raj Kumar Singh @ Kalu Singh, S/o. Brij Mohan Singh, aged about 35 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order, vide SB(I) No.248/PD-2/HYD/ 2020, dated 24.11.2020, passed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, wherein, the detenu was detained 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, 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 & White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (for short "P.D. Act") and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.256, dated 01.02.2021, issued by the respondent No.1-Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana.

2. We have heard the submissions of Smt. B.Mohana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned detention order is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, improper, against the principles of natural justice and has been passed in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. In the solitary crime relied by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu, the detenu moved five bail petitions and all the five bail petitions were dismissed by the Court concerned. Hence, the detenu continues to be in judicial custody. Without there being any cogent material on record, the detaining authority reached to the conclusion that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the near future and would indulge in similar illegal activities. The impugned detention order is passed on surmises and conjectures. The detaining authority got swayed away by the stale crimes registered against the detenu and arrived at subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a habitual offender and termed him as a ‘drug offender’. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu is based on irrelevant, extraneous and non-existent material. The detenu was not supplied with the material basing on which the impugned detention order was passed, in the language known to him, within the statutory period. Non-supply of material in the language known to the detenu within the statutory period from the date of the order of detention vitiates the impugned detention order. Already criminal law was set into motion against the detenu. Hence, there is no need for the respondents to invoke draconian preventive detention laws against him. The detaining authority did not assign any reason for coming to a conclusion that the activities of the detenu are affecting the public order. Further, the solitary case alleged against the detenu does not add up to “disturbing the public order”. It is confined within the ambit and scope of the word “law and order”. Since the offence alleged is under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’), the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the said special law. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws. Hence, the impugned detention order tantamounts to colourable exercise of power. The detaining authority has to be extremely careful while passing the detention order, since the detention ipso facto adversely affe