Detention Act in Telangana ‘Draconian’: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is on Friday surprised to find that guarantees to be accused of having no practical meaning in Telangana because state police can request the provisions of prevention of malicious activities to place a person under preventive detention for the same violation for the violation he has Given a guarantee by the court.
“This is the law of Draconia clearly against people’s freedom.
It is surprising that no one has challenged legal validity,” said Judicial Judges RF Nariman, Km Joseph and BR Gavai at the petition by Detenu’s wife.
Advocate Gaurav Agrawal told the court that the man, a share trader, was accused of cheating five people and five pine was registered by the Medchal police station under the Cyberabad Police Commissioner.
Agrawal said in all five cases, the defendant was given a guarantee, but as soon as the court released it to the guarantee, the police put it under preventive detention by moving the appointed authority to request the provisions of prevention of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, drug violators, goonda, traffic perpetrators immoral [land deprivation, false seed violators, insecticide violators, fertilizer, violator of food, false document violators, scheduled commodity violators, forest violators, gaming violators, explosive people, violator arms, violators of virtual world crimes and white collars or financial violators ] Act, 1986.
The bench issued a notification to the Telangana government and looked for his response within a week.
Agrawal said strength under preventive detention law must be effectively explained by the authorities only if the dangers of the crime commission are real and flight attendants as a preventive detention against the constitutional ethic firmly supporting people’s lives and freedom.
Agrawal said the five pemara accused the Petitioner’s husband, who was a stock trader, from those who cheated their money in investment clothing on the stock market.
The court court has examined gravity of violations and the quality of evidence before giving him a guarantee in the Fifth FIR, he said.
But, the appointed authority uses its strength under section 3 of the PD law to place the defendant under detention as soon as he was ordered to be released on the guarantee, so it not only violated the right to life and freedom guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution but also In bold disobedience on court guarantee orders.