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 determining the legality of a detention order.

ORDER :

Shameem Akther, J.

1. Sri Setty Nagaraju, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his son, Shetti Rajashekhar, S/o. Nagaraju, aged about 21 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order vide No. 65/PD-CELL/CYB/2020, dated 12.11.2020, passed by the respondent No. 1-Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, wherein, the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertilizer Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders & White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (for short, "P.D. Act").

2. Heard the submissions of Sri B. Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home representing the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that by relying on a single criminal case registered against the detenu in Crime No. 596 of 2020 of Mailardevpally Police Station, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, the respondent No. 1 passed the impugned detention order, dated 12.11.2020. According to the respondent No. 1, the detenu is a 'Sexual Offender', as he has engaged himself in unlawful acts of sexual offence committing penetrative aggravated sexual assault on a minor girl in the limits of Mailardevpally Police Station, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, in an organized way and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Subsequently, vide G.O.Rt. No. 243, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 30.01.2021, the impugned detention order was confirmed by the respondent No. 2-Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Older)) Department, Government of Telangana Hence, this Writ Petition before this Court.

4. Sri B. Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:

Firstly, that relying only on a single criminal case registered against the detenu in the year 2020, the impugned detention order is passed.

Secondly, the alleged case does not add up to "disturbing the public order". It is confined within the ambit and scope of the word "law and older". Since the offences alleged are under the Indian Penal Code and a special legislation i.e., Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short. 'POCSO Act'), the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the Indian Penal Code and the said special legislation. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws. Hence, the impugned orders tantamount to colourable exercise of power.

Thirdly, the detaining authority has not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, while passing the impugned detention order. The detenu has no past criminal history. The detenu was granted bail in the crime relied upon by the detaining authority. After release on bail, the detenu has not involved in any crime or criminal activity and he never violated the bail conditions.

Fourthly, the detaining authority is not justified in invoking the draconian power under the preventive detention laws. Already criminal law was set into motion against the detenu. Preventive detention cannot be made a substitute to punitive detention. The detaining authority has to be extremely careful while passing the detention order, since the detention ipso facto adversely affects the fundamental right and personal liberty enjoyed by the detenu under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Lastly, that th