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 before passing a detention order.

JUDGMENT :

G. Sri Devi, J.

1. Smt. Erukala Narsamma, the petitioner, has filed this habeas corpus petition on behalf of her son, Sri Erukala Venkatesam @ Venkatesh S/o. Mogulaiah, the detenu, challenging the detention order vide Proceedings No. 23/PD-CELL/CYB/2021 dated 22.03.2021, passed by the 2nd respondent, and the consequential confirmation order passed by the 1st respondent vide G.O. Rt. No. 1138, dated 21.05.2021, whereby, the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986).

2. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, 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 two robbery offences viz., Crime No. 790/2020 of Dundigal Police Station and No. 812/2020 of Pet-Basheerbad Police Station, passed the impugned detention order, dated 22.03.2021. According to respondent No. 2, the detenu is a 'Goonda' as he has been habitually committing robberies by threatening with knife in an organized way to get easy money in the limits of Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, thus acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, apart from disturbing the peace and tranquility in the society. Subsequently, the impugned detention order was confirmed by the Government, vide G.O. Rt. No. 1138, dated 21.05.2021.

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 detenue was released on conditional bails in the said two crimes referred to above. The apprehension of the detaining authority that after release on bail, the detenu would indulge in similar offences, unless he is prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of detention, is misconceived. The alleged crimes do not add upto "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. 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 supporting the impugned orders and submitted that the detenu is a 'Goonda'. He has been habitually committing robberies and thereby acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, apart from disturbing peace and tranquility in the society. Though the detenu was released on conditional bail, the apprehension of the detaining authority that there is every possibility of the detenu indulging in similar offences, is not misconceived. The series of crimes allegedly committed by the detenu were sufficient to cause a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people at large. Since the modus of committing the crime was robbery, it has created sufficient panic in the minds of the general public. 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 considering the same alongwith the entire material, the Government confirmed the impugned detention order vide G.O. Rt. No. 1138, dated 21.05.2021. All the mandatory requirements were strictly followed by the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. The impugned orders are legally sustainable and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. In view of the submissions made by both the sid