Back
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
Konala Anasuya – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
A. Rajasheker Reddy, J.
Smt Konala Anasuya, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of her husband, Sri Konala Achi Reddy, S/o. Subbi Reddy, the detenu, challenging the detention order vide Proc.No.C1/3687/2021, dt.27.04.2021, passed by the 2nd respondent 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.1450, dt.06.07.2021, passed by the 1st respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the 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 three crimes viz., (1) Cr.No.114/2020 of Tripuraram P.S.; (2) Cr.No.50/2021 of Nalgonda II Town P.S. and (3) Cr.No.44/2021 of Miryalaguda II town P.S., the respondent No.2 passed the impugned detention order, dated 27.04.2021. According to respondent No.2, the detenu along with his associates have induced innocent job aspirants/unemployed youth, promising to provide them jobs in Railways, Electricity Board, Government hospitals and other departm
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
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 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....
The main legal point established is the distinction between law and order and public order, emphasizing that preventive detention should be reserved for emergent situations affecting public order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an act to warrant preventive detention on the grounds of public order, it must directly and inevitably lead to a harm, danger, or alarm am....
: Preventive detention – Mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for action under Preventive Detention Laws.
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.
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
