1. Heard Ms. Ravula Sowmya Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Godugu Mallesham, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondent No.3 to produce the detenu i.e., Mr. Dasari Chaitanya @ Vikram Chaitanya, now detained in Central Prison, Cherlapally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, before this Hon’ble Court and to set aside the impugned detention order vide proceedings No.32/PD-CELL/CYB/2023, dated 12-05-2023 passed by respondent No.2 and consequential Confirmation Order, if any passed by respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unilateral, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and to forthwith release the detenu.
3. The impugned detention order dated 12.05.2023 was passed by respondent No.2 relying on solitary crime i.e., Crime No.800 of 2022 registered against the detenu for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 370 (A) of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of PITA 1956 by Police, KPHB Police Station, Cyberabad. The allegation leveled against the detenu is that he is the organizer of prostitution. He has already released on bail on 17.02.2023.
4. Even then, without considering the entire material on record and also the fact that the Criminal law was already set on motion, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned detention order.
5. Except the aforesaid one case, there is no other case against the detenu. There is no past criminal history.
6. It is relevant to note that the investigating authority in the aforesaid crime did not file any application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the detenu.
7. Thus, relying on aforesaid solitary crime, respondent No.2 has issued impugned detention order. There is no dispute that detention order can be passed relying on solitary crime. At the same time, the Detaining Authority shall consider the nature of offence and the manner in which it was committed. The Detaining Authority shall come to a subjective satisfaction that due to the acts committed by the detenu there is disturbance to the public order while issuing the impugned detention order. In the present case, there is no consideration of the said aspects by the respondent No.2/Detaining Authority while issuing the impugned detention order
8. This Court and Apex Court, time and again, categorically held that detention orders can be passed in rarest of rare cases, that too, to prevent the detenu from committing similar offences. In the present case, the detaining authority has issued impugned detention order without considering the aforesaid aspects.
9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, according to this Court, impugned detention order dated 12.05.2023 is illegal. It is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside.
10. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the detention order vide proceedings No.32/PD-CELL/CYB/2023 dated 12.05.2023 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Dasari Chaitanya @ Vikram Chaitanya S/o Kullayappa, free, if he is no longer required in any other criminal case. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
