Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 81 (TS)

Vankadoth Shamala v. State of Telangana

2023-01-30

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, PULLA KARTHIK

body2023
JUDGMENT ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ,J. - This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "....to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the 3rd respondent to produce the detenu by name Vankudoth Anil Kumar Nayak S/o Sethu Nayak who is now detained in Central Prison, Cheriapally, Hyderabad before this Honble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide proceedings No.C.No.630/WRC/CSBXI/2022 dtd. 12/11/2022 passed by the 2nd Respondent as illegal unconstitutional and violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India...." 2. Heard Mrs. Mogili Anaveni, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's husband was detained by the respondents under Act 1 of 1986 vide orders, dtd. 12/11/2022 and the detenu was detained on the alleged ground that in all, two crimes were registered against the petitioner's husband for the offences under sec. 8 (c) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(c) of NPDS Act, 1985 i.e., Cr.No.54 of 2022 and Cr.No.152 of 2022 on the file of Bachannapet Police Station. However, the petitioner's husband was released on bail in the said crimes. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the respondents have passed orders of detention on the ground that two cases were registered against the petitioner's husband and the Criminal Court had granted bail in favour of the detenu and even before the detenu furnishing the sureties and coming out of the jail, the respondents have passed detention orders on the ground that the public order would be disturbed, if the detenu is released on the bail. It has been alleged that since the detenu was possessing small quantity of ganja, he was detained as the same is causing public disturbance and general public would be affected. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the cases are filed against the detenu for the offences under NDPS Act, the same special laws will take care of the detenu and the respondents ought not to have detained the detenu by invoking Act 1 of 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the cases are filed against the detenu for the offences under NDPS Act, the same special laws will take care of the detenu and the respondents ought not to have detained the detenu by invoking Act 1 of 1986. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the detention orders, as the detenu was booked in the NDPS Act and that Special law itself will take care and personal liberty of the detenu cannot be taken away by invoking Act 1 of 1986. 5. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents contended that the offence committed by the detenu is affecting the general public and especially, the youth of the society. The respondents have rightly passed the orders of detention by invoking Act 1 of 1986. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.31236 of 2022, dtd. 5/9/2002, on an occasion to deal with an identical ganja matter, where the quantity was 680 kgs, has set aside the orders of detention. Admittedly, in the instant case, 96 kg ganja in one case and 4 kgs ganja in another case were recovered from the detenu. As the Division Bench of this Court has set aside the orders of detention where ganja quantity was more than 600 kgs therefore, this Court is of the considered view that in the present case, as less quantity of ganja was recovered from the detenu, the respondents could not have invoked Act 1 of 1986 and detained the detenu. Therefore, the detention orders passed against the detenu, dtd. 12/11/2022 are liable to be set aside and accordingly they are set aside and the detenu shall be set free. 7. Before parting with the case, we are of the opinion that the Act 1 of 1986 is intended to ensure amendment of public order and the same is not adversely affected with the anti-social elements. 12/11/2022 are liable to be set aside and accordingly they are set aside and the detenu shall be set free. 7. Before parting with the case, we are of the opinion that the Act 1 of 1986 is intended to ensure amendment of public order and the same is not adversely affected with the anti-social elements. Though the said Act provides for detention of detenu up to one year, but it would have been better, if the State considers to rehabilitate the detenus and provide some skill training programmes and also considers for possibility of putting some rehabilitation to the detenus, after extracting the reasonable work during the course of detention, which would ensure that the detenus will be reformed and would not repeat the same crimes. 8. With these observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order vide C.No.630/WRC/CSB-XI/2022, dt.12/11/2022, passed by the 2nd respondent, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Vankudoth Anil Kumar Nayak, S/o. Sethu Nayak, at liberty, forthwith, incase, he is no longer required in any other criminal case No costs. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.