ORDER :

1. Smt. K. Rajeswari, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of her son Kolipaka @ Kokku Rakesh S/o Chandraiah @ Ramchandram, the detenu, challenging the detention order vide C. No. 102/PDC/KNR/2021, dated 27.05.2021, passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby, the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986) and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt. No. 1656, General Administration [Spl. (Law and Order)] Department, Government of Telangana, dated 24.07.2021, passed by respondent No. 1.

2. Heard Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri B. Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. Manoj Kumar, 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 relying on three crimes registered against the detenu in the years 2020 and 2021 i.e. Crime Nos.186 of 2020, 74 of 2021 and 83 of 2021 of PS LMD Colony and Karimnagar-I Town Police Station respectively, the respondent No. 2, passed the impugned detention order, dated 27.05.2021. According to respondent No. 2, the detenu is a ‘Goonda’ as he has been indulging in a series of offences, such as Burglary and thefts in the limits of Karimnagar Police Commissionerate, thereby creating large scale of fear and panic among the people, adversely affecting the public order. Subsequently, the impugned detention order was confirmed by the Government, vide G.O.Rt. No. 1656, General Administration (Spl. L&O) Department, dated 24.07.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned detention order has been passed without issuing any show-cause notice to the detenu; that the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Banka Sneha Sheela vs. State of Telangana and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 530. The detenu was granted bail by the Courts concerned in all the three crimes relied upon by the detaining authority. But he continues to be in judicial custody for non furnishing of sureties. Under these circumstances, the apprehension of the detaining authority that there is every likelihood of detenu releasing on bail and on such release, there is imminent possibility of detenu indulging in similar offences which are detrimental to public order, unless he is prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of detention, is highly misplaced. Further, the alleged crimes do not add up to “disturbing the public order” and 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 penal code. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention law against the detenu. Therefore, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to allow the Writ Petitions, as prayed for.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents supported the impugned orders and submitted that the detenu is a Goonda. He has been indulging in a series of offences, such as Burglary and thefts and thereby creating large scale of fear and panic among the people, adversely affecting the public order, apart from disturbing peace and tranquility in the area. The detenu got bail in all three crimes relied upon by the detaining authority. Therefore, the apprehension of the detaining authority that the detenu would be released on bail in due course of time and on such release, he would indulge in similar prejudicial activities, is not misconceived. The series of crimes allegedly committed by the detenu were sufficient to cause a feeling of insecurity