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 departments and thus collected huge amounts and failed to arrange jobs and also made them believe that as per their horoscopes they have certain problems and on the pretext of performing certain poojas, collected huge amounts from the victims and thus cheated them and thereby created panic and feeling of insecurity among the public, particularly un-employed youth, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order apart from disturbing peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society. Subsequently, the impugned detention order was confirmed by the Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.1450, dt.06.07.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned detention order has been passed in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. Already criminal law was set into motion against the detenu. The detenu was granted conditional bail by the Courts in all the three crimes and charge sheets were also filed and the detenue has not violated any bail conditions. But he was again sent to jail by invoking the draconian preventive detention laws on the apprehension that there is imminent possibility of the detenu, again, indulging in similar offences, which is unjustified. He also submits that the detaining authority while passing the detention order though referred bail orders but, has not discussed the bail conditions imposed which vitiates the subjective satisfaction arrived by it and it goes to show non application of mind by the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. The alleged crimes do not add up to “disturbing the public order” and they are confined within the ambit and scope of “law and order”. Since the offences alleged are under the Indian Penal Code, the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted if found guilty under the penal code. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention law against the detenu. Hence, the impugned orders tantamount to colourable exercise of power. The impugned orders are legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to allow the Writ Petition, as prayed for.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents filed counter and supported the impugned orders and submitted that the detaining authority has not only taken three cases as a ground for passing the order of detention but also taken the past history of the detenu of involving in seven (7) crimes of cheating the public which are affecting the public order apart from disturbing peace and tranquility in the area. Therefore, the detaining authority was legally justified in passing the impugned detention order. Further, the Advisory Board rendered its opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu and on consid