Back
SHAMEEM AKTHER, CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
C. Abhayananda – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
Shameem Akther, J.
Sri C. Abhayananda, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his son, Chetty Saichitra Anand, the detenu, challenging the detention order vide No.160/PD-CELL/CYB/2021, dated 18.11.2021, passed by the respondent No.3, whereby, the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.
3. The case of the petitioner is that basing on a recent solitary crime registered against the detenu viz., Crime No.515 of 2021 of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’), the respondent No.3 passed the impugned detention order, dated 18.11.2021. According to respondent No.3, the detenu is a ‘Drug Offender’, as he has been engaging himself in illegal a
The main legal point established is the need for caution in invoking preventive detention, especially in distinguishing between 'law and order' and 'public order' as per Supreme Court precedents.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of justifying the invocation of preventive detention laws and the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' in determini....
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
Point of Law : Detention order - there is every possibility of detenu committing similar offences in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.- acts of the detenu cannot be ef....
The judgment establishes the principle that the invocation of preventive detention laws should be wary and that the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' must be carefully considered....
The distinction between 'public order' and 'law and order' is crucial in determining the justification for preventive detention under the P.D. Act, and the sufficiency of subjective satisfaction by t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
