HYDERABAD: Finding no illegality in the order given for detaining N Sridhar Goud who, along with the co-accused, committed several offences along with the notorious members of the gang of Nayeemuddin alias Nayeem who was killed in an encounter on August 8 last year, the High Court has recently dismissed a petition filed against the detention order passed by the Rachakonda police commissioner under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.
A division bench, comprising justices P V Sanjay Kumar and Shameem Akther, dismissed the petition filed by the wife of Sridhar Goud seeking his release and urging the court to declare the impugned detention order passed on December 27 last year as illegal and unconstitutional.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the detenu was not provided with all the material documents relied upon and he was not explained the contents thereof and was denied the constitutional right of effectively making a representation against his detention order. In fact, the order was passed in a mechanical manner and the alleged complaints against the detenu were based on the confessions of co-accused, he pointed out.
The government pleader submitted that the detaining authority had furnished copies of all the documents, on which reliance was placed, to the detenu.
In fact, the detenu was a “goonda” as he had been habitually committing grave and gruesome unlawful activities such as kidnapping, extortions, murders, land grabbing and so on thereby adversely affecting the public order and creating fear and insecurity in the minds of the general public. The order impugned was issued to prevent him from further indulging in such activities, he explained.
The bench found that the detenu had received the copies of documents in Telugu and English. Besides, he had confessed to the commission of offences and they were recorded in all the seven criminal cases. Further, nowhere was it stated that the detaining authority passed the detention order relying on the confession made by the co-accused.
“It is evident from the record that the detenu, along with other accused, habitually and continuously committing offences punishable under IPC and other laws, and his activities have prejudicial effect on the society as a whole as well as public order,” the bench opined while dismissing the petition for his release.