2021 Supreme(SC) 414

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. F. Nariman, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
BANKA SNEHA SHEELA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
Criminal Appeal No. 733 of 2021 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4729 of 2021]
Decided on : 02-08-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects ‘law and order’ but before it can be said to affect ‘public order’, it must affect the community or public at large.
(2) Preventive detention must fall within four corners of Article 21 read with Article 22 and statute in question.

Headnote:

(A) Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 – Section 3(2) – Preventive Detention – For ‘public order’ to be disturbed, there must in turn be public disorder – Mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects ‘law and order’ but before it can be said to affect ‘public order’, it must affect the community or public at large – What is alleged in five FIRs pertain to realm of ‘law and order’ in that various acts of cheating are ascribed to Detenu which are punishable under three sections of Indian Penal Code set out in five FIRs – Reason for said Order is not any apprehension of widespread public harm, danger or alarm but is only because Detenu was successful in obtaining anticipatory bail/bail from Courts in each of five FIRs – If a person is granted anticipatory bail/bail wrongly, there are well-known remedies in ordinary law to take care of situation – State can always appeal against bail order granted and/or apply for cancellation of bail – Mere successful obtaining of anticipatory bail/bail orders being real ground for detaining Detenu, harm, danger or alarm or feeling of security among general public spoken of in Section 2(a) of Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act is make believe and totally absent in facts of present case. (Paras 13 and 14)

(B) Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 22 – Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 – Section 3(2) – Preventive Detention – When a person is preventively detained, it is Articles 21 and 22 that are attracted and not Article 19 – Preventive detention must fall within four corners of Article 21 read with Article 22 and statute in question – On facts of this case, at the highest, a possible apprehension of breach of law and order can be said to be made out if it is apprehended that Detenu, if set free, will continue to cheat gullible persons – This may be a good ground to appeal against bail orders granted and/or to cancel bail but certainly cannot provide springboard to move under a preventive detention statute – Detention order quashed on this ground. (Paras 17 and 24)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 31.03.2021, passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, by which a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner challenging a Preventive Detention Order passed against the Petitioner’s husband [Detenu] under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders,

Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 was dismissed.

Findings of Court:

To therefore argue that a liberal meaning must be given to expression ‘public order’ in the context of a preventive detention statute is wholly inapposite and incorrect. On the contrary, considering that preventive detention is a necessary evil only to prevent public disorder, the Court must ensure that the facts brought before it directly and inevitably lead to a harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof at large.

Result : Appeal allowed.