Telangana HC allows Habeas Corpus petition for release of accused in drug case

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court granted a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the immediate release of a person accused of systematic violation of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The panel comprising judge P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji said that merely charging a repeat offender would not amount to ‘acting in any way prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order’.

The panel was hearing a plea filed by Thakur Jyothi seeking the release of her son Akash Singh, who was allegedly involved in selling ganja. It was alleged that the crimes against the detenu were registered within the jurisdiction of the Hyderabad and Cyberabad Police Commissioners, indicating a pattern of persistent and organized drug trafficking. In 2021, police arrested him in connection with possession and sale of ‘ganja’, a banned substance under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

During the arrest, the police seized, among other things, 1,120 grams of ganja, packaged in 28 sleeves of 40 grams each. Thereafter, the detenu was charged under the NDPS Act and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. Due to the seriousness and repetitive nature of the offence, the Hyderabad Police Commissioner has issued the preventive detention order and classified the detenu as a ‘drug offender’. This order of the commissioner was challenged before the panel.

The petitioner argued that the alleged crimes fall within the ambit of common law and do not constitute a breach of public order, and questions the necessity and legality of the detention order under the law. It was thus claimed that the detention was unconstitutional and illegal. It was also submitted that there was no material to justify treating the detenu as a drug offender under the law. Moreover, it was alleged that the top cop had not followed the mandatory procedure before invoking the provisions of the law setting aside the arrest warrant. On the other hand, the special advocate for the government opposed the writ petition and submitted that the detenu was a habitual drug offender.

It was also alleged that the detenu’s involvement in drug trafficking showed a pattern of behavior that posed a threat to public order and health. The panel noted, among other things, that it was essential to consider that the purpose of preventive detention was not to punish past acts, but to prevent future damage to public order.

The panel concluded that anticipating possible future crimes based on past conduct did not meet the strict criteria for preventive detention and that the reasoning given by the Commissioner in adopting the contested preventive detention order and which was confirmed by the advisory board, was not justified or satisfactory it becomes difficult to enforce the same. The summons was therefore allowed.

Ensure that scathing comments against actor Sritej are removed, Madhapur told SHO

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the Madhapur SHO to take immediate steps for removal of objectionable content in which scandalous and derogatory statements were made against Tollywood actor Sritej. The actor, whose original name is Sanam Jyothi, in his writ petition alleged that a crime was registered by the Madhapur police station over a suspicious death and as per the statements of the FIR, the deceased went to the gym for his daily workout but did not that. not back until late in the evening. His wife went to the gym and found her husband passed out next to the treadmill. The complainant immediately took the deceased to a hospital, where the doctor on duty declared him brought dead. The counsel for the petitioner, Y. Soma Srinath Reddy, submitted that the person who reported the death of the deceased is none other than his wife and that the death of the deceased took place in the gym of their apartment complex, evidencing the involvement of the deceased petitioner, a third party, is highly unlikely. He would submit that since there was previous grudge between the parties, a suit was filed by the mother of the deceased and the minor daughter, represented by the mother of the deceased as her next girlfriend, for partition. The petitioner is defendant No. 3 and the wife of the deceased is defendant No. 1.

He further submitted that irresponsible and baseless allegations had been made in the complaint regarding the illicit relationship between the petitioner and the wife of the deceased. Based on this, scandalous and derogatory statements are made against the petitioner regarding his illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased. Justice Vijaysen Reddy after going through the record said that in the opinion of this court, the aforesaid media broadcast/publication has no connection with 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 expressing defamation and expressing an opinion about the petitioner’s involvement in the death of the deceased and an illicit relationship, even if there is investigation pending in the FIR cannot be tolerated. The judge accordingly directed SHO Madhapur to take necessary steps to remove the objectionable content against the petitioner from the media.