Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court allowed a habeas corpus writ petition and directed the immediate release of a person accused of systematic violation of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The panel, comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji, said that merely charging a habitual offender would not amount to ‘acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order’.
The panel was dealing with a writ plea filed by Thakur Jyothi seeking release of her son Akash Singh, allegedly involved in peddling ganja. It was alleged that the offences were registered against the detenu within the jurisdiction of Hyderabad and Cyberabad police commissionerates indicating a pattern of persistent and organised drug trafficking. In 2021, police authorities apprehended him in connection for possession and peddling of ‘ganja’, which is a prohibited substance under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Upon arrest, police inter alia seized 1120 grams of ganja packed in 28 covers of 40 grams each. Thereafter, the detenu was charged under the NDPS Act, and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. Due to the severity and repetitive nature of the offence, the Hyderabad commissioner of police passed the preventive detention order and classified the detenu as a ‘drug-offender’. This order of the commissioner was challenged before the panel.
The petitioner contended that the alleged crimes fell under the purview of ordinary law and do not constitute a disturbance of public order, questioning the necessity and legality of the detention order under the Act. Thus, it was contended that the detention was unconstitutional and illegal. It was also that contended that there was no material to justify treating the detenu as a drug offender under the Act. Moreover, it was alleged that the top cop did not follow the mandatory procedure before invoking the provisions of Act rendering the detention order liable to set aside. On the other hand, the special government pleader opposed the writ petition and argued that the detenu was a habitual drug offender.
It was also argued that the detenu’s engagement in drug trafficking showed a pattern of behaviour that posed a threat to public order and health. The panel inter alia observed that it was essential to consider that the purpose of preventive detention was not to punish past actions, but to prevent future harm to public order.
The panel concluded that the anticipation of potential future crimes based on past behaviour did not meet the stringent criteria for preventive detention and that the reasoning given by the commissioner while passing the impugned order of preventive detention and which was affirmed by the advisory board was not justifiable or satisfactory becoming difficult to uphold the same. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
Ensure removal of damning comments against actor Sritej, Madhapur SHO told
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the Madhapur SHO to forthwith initiate steps for removal of objectionable content making scandalous and derogatory statements against Tollywood actor Sritej. The actor, whose original same is Sanam Jyothi, in his writ petition contended that a crime was registered by the Madhapur police station for a suspicious death and as per the averments of the FIR, the deceased went to the gym for his daily workout but did not return till late evening. His wife went to the gym and found her husband lying unconscious beside the treadmill. Immediately, the complainant shifted the deceased to a hospital, where the duty doctor declared him brought dead. Counsel for the petitioner, Y. Soma Srinath Reddy argued that the person, who reported the death of the deceased is none other than his wife and the death of the deceased took place in the gym in their apartment complex, thus, the involvement of the petitioner, a third party, is highly improbable. He would submit that as there were previous grudges between the parties, a suit was filed by the mother of the deceased and minor daughter represented by the mother of the deceased as her next friend for partition. The petitioner is made defendant No.3 and wife of the deceased is defendant no.1.
He further argued that irresponsible and unsubstantiated allegations were made about the illicit relationship between the petitioner and the wife of the deceased in the plaint averments. Based on the same, scandalous and derogatory statements are made against the petitioner about his illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased. Justice Vijaysen Reddy after perusing the record said, in the opinion of this court, the aforesaid media telecast/publication is unconnected to the FIR. Even otherwise, the media cannot conduct any trial. The publication of information relating to a civil case or a criminal case cannot be prohibited but casting aspersions and expressing opinion on the involvement of the petitioner in the death of the deceased and illicit relationship, even when investigation is pending in FIR, cannot be countenanced. The judge accordingly directed SHO Madhapur to take necessary steps to remove the objectionable contents against the petitioner from the media.