Point of law: It is the bounden duty of the Police to inform the learned Public Prosecutor about the conduct of an accused and to handover the history-sheet of the accused

ORDER :

Dr. Shameem Akther, J.

1. Kammati Amrutha, W/o. Anjaiah, the petitioner, has filed the present Habeas Corpus petition, on behalf of her nephew, Kurra Anjaiah, S/o. Lachaiah, challenging the detention order, dated 11.08.2020, passed by the respondent No. 2-Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, and the consequential confirmation order, dated 20.08.2020, passed by the respondent No.1-State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that by relying on three recent criminal cases registered against the detenu during the year 2020 in the limits of Ramagundam and Karimnagar Police Commissionerates, the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, the respondent No. 2, passed the detention order, dated 11.08.2020. According to the respondent No. 2, the detenu indulged in the acts of goondaism by committing series of offences such as Burglaries, Automobile Thefts and Bodily Offence and created fear in the minds of general public. With a view to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the impugned detention order, dated 11.08.2020, was passed. The detention order was confirmed by the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law and Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, respondent No. 1, vide G.O.Rt. No. 1218, dated 20.08.2020. Hence, this Writ Petition before this Court.

4. Ms. Sujatha Kurapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the impugned detention order was passed by relying on three cases i.e., 1) Crime No. 223 of 2020 of Peddapalli Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C., 2) Crime No. 270 of 2020 of Mancherial Town Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. and 3) Crime No. 133 of 2020 of Basanthnagar Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. The offences alleged against the detenu in the said cases do not amount to disturbing the public order. They fall within the ambit and scope of law and order. The bail petitions moved in Crime Nos. 223 of 2020 and 133 of 2020 were dismissed on 04.08.2020, but in Crime No. 270 of 2020 the detenu was granted bail on 04.08.2020 and again on 07.08.2020, the detenu moved bail petitions in Crime Nos. 223 of 2020 and 133 of 2020 and the same are pending consideration. Admittedly, the detenu is in judicial custody since 06.07.2020 and the detaining authority on the apprehension that if he is released on bail, there is every likelihood of his indulging in similar offences, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the impugned detention order. Since the offences alleged against the detenu are under the Indian Penal Code, he can certainly be tried and convicted under the Indian Penal Code. The ordinary law was already invoked against the detenu to curb his illegal activities and invoking the preventive detention law, as an alternative method, is abuse of process of law. Further, the representation submitted by the detenu to the Advisory Board is pending. Therefore, the impugned detention order and the consequential confirmation order are unsustainable and the same are liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, Sri T. Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the learned Additional Advocate General, would submit that the detenu is involved in as many as nine (09) cases of Burglaries, Automobile Thefts and Bodily Offence. The series of crimes allegedly committed by him are sufficient to cause a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people at large. While passing the impugned detention order, the detaining authority is well aware of the fact that the detenu is in