Back
K. LAKSHMAN, P. SREE SUDHA
Sk. Nafeesa W/o B. Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Heard Mrs. B. Mohana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. All these writ petitions are filed to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenus and to order for their release forthwith by declaring their detentions vide proceedings Nos.16, 15 and 14/PD-CELL/RCKD/2023, all dated 08.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 as illegal.
3. The Detentions were approved by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt. No.389, General Administration (Special Law & Order) Department, dated 13.03.2023. Therefore, the petitioners herein have filed I.A. No.1 of 2023 to amend the prayer in all the writ petitions. He has filed copies of the said G.Os. Considering the said facts, the said I.A. is also allowed today.
4. Perusal of the impugned orders of detention would reveal that the detention of detenus were on the ground that they were involved in two (02) crimes i.e., i) Crime No.14 of 2023 and ii) Crime No.46 of 2023 registered for the offences under Section - 392 of IPC by Maheshwaram and Adibatla Polic
(1) Mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects ‘law and order’ but before it can be said to affect ‘public order’, it must affect the commun....
Preventive detention must be justified by a clear disturbance to public order, not merely by allegations of individual offenses.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of a threat to public order, not merely the existence of FIRs; such orders cannot substitute for ordinary law enforcement.
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence linking the detainee's actions to a threat to public order, not merely the registration of FIRs.
Preventive detention must be based on a clear threat to public order, not merely on the existence of criminal charges.
Preventive detention must demonstrate a clear threat to public order, not merely rely on the existence of FIRs.
Preventive detention must be based on substantial evidence showing a threat to public order, not merely on the existence of criminal charges.
Preventive detention must be based on substantial evidence showing a threat to public order, not just on the existence of criminal charges.
Preventive detention must be based on substantial evidence showing a threat to public order, not merely on the registration of FIRs.
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
