Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Mallada K Sri Ram – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana & Ors – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No 561 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No 1788 of 2022)
Decided on : 04-04-2022
(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – 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) – Habeas Corpus Petition – Preventive detention – Detenu is a ‘white-collar offender’ under Section 2(x) of Telangana Act of 1986 whose offence of cheating gullible job aspirants has been causing “large scale fear and panic among gullible unemployed job aspirants/youth – He has been acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order apart from disturbing peace, tranquillity and social harmony in society – Order of detention records that detenu had moved bail applications in two cases in which he was in judicial custody and that Magistrate had granted him conditional bail. It was apprehended that he may violate the bail conditions while committing similar offences – No application for cancellation of bail was moved by investigating authorities for violation of bail conditions – Order of detention records that detenu had moved bail applications in two cases in which he was in judicial custody and that Magistrate had granted him conditional bail – It was apprehended that he may violate bail conditions while committing similar offences – No application for cancellation of bail was moved by investigating authorities for violation of bail conditions – High Court has failed to probe existence of a live and proximate link between past cases and need to detain detenu after seven months of registration of first FIR and nearly five months of securing bail – Mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet standard of adversely affecting “maintenance of public order”. (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 15)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – 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) – Habeas Corpus Petition – Preventive detention – Nature of allegations against detenu are grave – However, personal liberty of accused cannot be sacrificed on altar of preventive detention merely because a person is implicated in a criminal proceeding – Powers of preventive detention are exceptional and even draconian – Tracing their origin to colonial era, they have been continued with strict constitutional safeguards against abuse – Liberty of citizen cannot be left to lethargy of and delays on part of State – At least ten detention orders under Telangana Act of 1986 have been set aside by High Court of Telangana in last one year itself – These numbers evince a callous exercise of exceptional power of preventive detention by detaining authorities and respondent-State – Order of detention quashed and set aside. (Paras 15, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from a judgment dated 25 January 2022 of a Division Bench of High Court for the State of Telangana dismissing the writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
Findings of Court:
Article 22 of the Constitution was specifically inserted and extensively debated in the Constituent Assembly to ensure that the exceptional powers of preventive detention do not devolve into a draconian and arbitrary exercise of state authority. The case at hand is a clear example of non-application of mind to material circumstances having a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The two FIRs which were registered against the detenu are capable of being dealt by ordinary course of criminal law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 25 January 2022 of a Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana dismissing the writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
3. The brother1[“detenu”] of the appellant worked as an employee with an entity by the name of M/s Ixora Corporate Services2[“Company”], Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. On 13 October 2020, a complaint was lodged on behalf of the Company with the SHO, Banjara Hills, alleging that K Mahendar, another employee at the Company, had opened a salary account with the Federal Bank without authorization and in conspiracy with the detenu collected an amount of Rs 85 lakhs from 450 job aspirants. It was alleged that the co-accused who was in charge of the HR Department at the Company had, in collusion with the detenu, hatched a plan to collect money from individuals by misrepresenting that they would be given a job at the Company and collected money from aspirants for opening a bank account and supplying uniforms.
4. The first FIR, FIR No 675 of 2020, was registered on 15 October 2020 at Police Station Banjara Hills against K Mahendar (A-1) and the detenu (A-2) for offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code 18603[“IPC”]. On 17 December 2020, another FIR, FIR No 343 of 2020, was registered at Police Station Chatrinaka against the detenu for offences punishable under Sections 408, 420 and 120B IPC based on similar allegations at the behest of another informant. The detenu was arrested, in the first case, on 17 December 2020 and, in the second case, on the execution of a PT warrant on 4 January 2021. In the first case, the detenu was released on bail on 8 January 2021 in terms of an order dated 31 December 2020, subject to the condition that he shall appear before the SHO, Police Station Banjara Hills on Mondays between 10.30 am and 5 pm till the filing of the charge-sheet. In the second case, the detenu was released on bail by an order dated 11 January 2021, subject to the condition that he shall appear before the SHO, Police Station Chatrinaka on Sundays between 2 pm and 5 pm for a period of three months. The Court has been apprised of the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted in the first case.
5. An order of detention was passed against the detenu on 19 May 2021 under the provisions of 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 19864[“Telangana Act of 1986”]. The order of detention was challenged before the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition by its impugned judgment and order dated 25 January 2022.
6. Mr A Sirajudeen, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that there is exfacie, non-application of mind by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. Senior counsel submitted that this would be evident from the fact that the detenu had been granted bail almost five months prior to the order of detention. The grant of bail was subject to the condition that the detenu would report to the SHO of the police station concerned, in the first case, until the charge-sheet was filed and, in the second case, for a period of three months on stipulated days of the week. In the first case, the charge-sheet was submitted prior to the date of the order of detention on 19 May 2021. On the above premises, it has been submitted that the very basis of the order of detention stands vitiated since it will be apparent from the condition which was imposed by t
(1) Preventive detention – Mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet standard of adversely affecting “maintenance of public order”.(2) Personal liberty of accused canno....
(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 commun....
(1) Preventive detention – There is fine distinction between “law and order” and “public order” – Mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on maintenance of public ord....
Preventive detention must be justified by a clear disturbance to public order, not merely by allegations of individual offenses.
The detention order must be based on material showing the detenu is a threat to public order, and vital facts must be disclosed. There is a distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' in d....
(1) Preventive detention – Powers to be exercised under Preventive Detention Law are exceptional powers which have been given to Government for its exercise in an exceptional situation as it strikes ....
The detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 must be based on material showing a threat to public order, and the detaining authority must consider all relevant....
The detention order must be based on legal and valid subjective satisfaction, considering all vital facts, and should not be a substitute for the ordinary law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
