IMPORTANT POINT
Old and stale incidents cannot be made basis for preventive detention particularly when the accused in already in jail.

Headnote:(a) Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 – Section 3(1) – Preventive detention – Detention in 2016 – Relying on four stale cases 9 to 14 years old – Appellant already granted bail in three cases – Order apparently mala fide – All incidents apparently cases of ordinary criminal trespass – Detention order founded on stale incidents, must be regarded as an order of punishment for a crime, passed without a trial. (Para 12, 13, 16)
       (2012) 2 SCC 389; (1992) 1 SCC 434 – Relied upon
       (b) Administration of justice – Judicial review – Detention order – Personal liberty of a citizen at strake – Court does not substitute its judgment for the decision of the executive – Old and stale incidents in which detenu has been granted bail – Have no relevance for detaining a citizen and depriving him of his liberty without a trial, and vitiate the detention order – Merely stating satisfaction of authority not enough. (Para 17, 19, 20, 23)
       AIR 1950 FC 129; (1975) 2 SCC 81; (1989) 4 SCC 741; (1979) 2 SCC 491; (1914) AC 808 – Relied upon
       (c) Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 – Section 3(1) – Preventive detention – Appellant in jail since the year 2002-2003 – The incident made basis for detention in 2016 – A person in jail cannot be detained preventively. (Para 24)
       (1985) 4 SCC 232 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The appellant’s husband was detained by the order of the Commissioner of police which she challenged by way of a writ petition.
       The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
       Finding of the Court:
       Detention order is liable to be quashed.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

S.A.BOBDE, J.

The appellant -the wife of the detenu, has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.43671 of 2016, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of detention dated 23.11.2016, issued against the detenu by Respondent No.2–Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Rangareddy District, Telangana.

2. The detenu has been charged for various offences which he had allegedly committed during the years 2002-2007. Four FIR’s were registered for the said offences. He was admitted to bail in three FIR’s. In the fourth FIR Crime No. 221 of 2016, he was arrested on 05.09.2016. To prevent him from seeking bail, while in judicial custody he was detained under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, the 'Act of 1986').

3. The Respondent No.2 -Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Rangareddy District, Telangana, passed an order of detention against the detenu on 23.11.2016 under section 3(2) of the Act of 1986, for a unspecified period, from the date of service of the order on the detenu, and further directed that the detenu be lodged in Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad.

4. The aforesaid detention order was accompanied by grounds for detention of the same date. The grounds in the detention order carried a statement informing the detenu of his right to represent against the order of detention to (i) the detaining authority i.e. Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, (ii) the Chief Secretary to Government of Telangana State, Hyderabad, (iii) the Advisory Board.

5. The Respondent No.1 – State approved the aforesaid detention order on 01.12.2016 under section 3(3) of the Act of 1986. The Advisory Board reviewed the case on 02.01.2017 and opined that “there is sufficient cause for the detention of Sama Sanjeeva Reddy”. After the report of the Advisory Board, the respondent-State confirmed the detention order on 15.02.2017. Being aggrieved, the appellant-the wife approached the High Court by filing a writ petition which was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

6. The main contention of Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the grounds of detention are stale. They are based on the incidents which are said to have occurred between the period from 2002 to 2007 and are relied on by the detaining authority while forming its opinion and recording its satisfaction that the detenu needs to be detained on 23.11.2016.

7. The aforesaid contention of Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, may be examined with reference to the detention order. The detention order mentions six cases as follows:

Sl. No.	Case No.	Date of Incident	Date Of reporting incident	Offences under IPC
1.	Crime No.554/2013	26.9.2013	21.11.2013	447,427,506
2.	Crime No.8/2014	21.11.2014	23.11.2015	447, 427
3.	Crime No.361/2016	2007	13.08.2016	363, 384, 420,120B, Section 4 of AP LG Act and 25 1(B) of the Arms Act.
4.	Crime No.362/2016	2007	13.08.2016	363, 384, 420,120B, Section 4 of AP LG Act and 25 1(B) of the Arms Act.
5.	Crime No.367/2016	2005	17.08.2016	363, 384, 420,120B, Section 4 of AP LG Act and 25 1(B) of the Arms Act.
6.	Crime No.221/2016	2002-03	05.09.2016	419, 420, 468, 363, 452, 323, 342, 386, 505 r/w 120B, Section 4 of AP LG Act and 25 1(B) of the Arms Act.

8. The first two incidents are about three to two years before the detention order dated 23.11.2016. The other incidents are about 9 to 14 years before the detention order. Peculiarly, though the first two incidents are mentioned, the detaining authority has not relied on them as grounds of detention. The detaining aut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 468

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAS. A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.SAMA ARUNA – APPELLANT(S) VERSUSSTATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR – RESPONDENT(S) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 885 OF 2017 Decided On : 03-05-2017

IMPORTANT POINTOld and stale incidents cannot be made basis for preventive detention particularly when the accused in already in jail.

Cases Referred (6)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
SAMA ARUNA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 885 OF 2017
Decided On : 03-05-2017

IMPORTANT POINT
Old and stale incidents cannot be made basis for preventive detention particularly when the accused in already in jail.