HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD ****

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR W.P.No.29371 of 2025 DATE : 06.05.2026 Between :

Perelli Jyothi.

…Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration (Spl. Law & Order)

Department, Hyderabad and Two others …Respondents ORDER: (per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar Heard Mr.Amaragani Malsoor Goud, learned counsel representing Mr.Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Pradeep Kumar, learned Government Pleader attached to the Office of the Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed to direct respondent No.3 to produce the alleged detenu and order for his release after declaring the impugned detention order dated 26.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2 classifying the alleged detenu as a ‘land grabber’ as defined under Section 2(j) of the Telangana Prevention Of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land- Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders And White Collar Or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986) as confirmed by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.901 General Administration (Spl. (Law and Order)

Department) dated 07.07.2025 as arbitrary.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner/alleged detenu was engaged in a real estate business mediating transactions between land owners and prospective purchasers, earning commission, and at times entering into agreements and registered sale deeds for subsequent sale. During the course of such business, several disputes arose and gradually the persons, who are inimical towards the alleged detenu foisted false cases against him with an intention to gain advantage in land disputes.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the detenu was earlier implicated in a false murder case in Crime No.90 of 2005 of Khammam II- Town Police Station, wherein he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment but was subsequently acquitted from the said case, on merits. After his release in 2016, the same inimical persons, under the apprehension of retaliation, again foisted false cases, including six offences in the year 2024, in which the detenu was granted bail and released on

07.02.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned detention order dated 26.05.2025 has been initiated alleging that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the public order and tranquility in the locality, referring to the six (6) incidents wherein the detenu was shown as accused, which are alleged to have taken place in the year, 2024. It is contended that there is absolutely no material evidence to establish the direct involvement of the alleged detenu in the said crimes and the detaining authority failed to verify the records which may be construed that the detaining authorities have not applied the mind while passing the impugned detention order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the grounds of detention are still under investigation, no charge sheets have been filed, and reliance is placed on alleged confessions, which are inadmissible in law. It is further contended that the detention order was passed without any real incident affecting public order, and merely to invoke preventive detention, thereby infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

7. It is further submitted that there is no proximity or live nexus between the alleged incidents of 2024 and the impugned order of detention, and that the authorities failed to pursue ordinary legal remedies such as opposing or seeking cancell