1. Challenge to a preventive detention order under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, following robbery offences where the detenu was granted default bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 555
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
Shaik Nazneen – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana & Ors. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 908 OF 2022 (@ SLP (CRL. )NO. 4260 OF 2022
With
Syed Sabeena – Appellants
VERSUS
The State of Telangana & Ors. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 909 OF 2022 (@ SLP (CRL. )NO. 4283 OF 2022
Decided On : 22-06-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 hard on freedom and liberty of an individual and cannot be exercised in a routine manner.
(2) Default bail – In a bail of this nature conditions are not liable to be imposed.
(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 hard on freedom and liberty of an individual and cannot be exercised in a routine manner.
(2) Default bail – In a bail of this nature conditions are not liable to be imposed.
Subject
Preventive Detention - Public Order
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.21, Art.22
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.167(2)
DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES: R.30
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.392, S.411
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders: S.2(g), S.3, S.3(1)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.167(2)
DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES: R.30
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.392, S.411
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders: S.2(g), S.3, S.3(1)
Headnote
Constitution of India – Articles 226 read with 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 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 167(2) – Preventive detention – Habeas Corpus Petition – Against the detenu F.I.Rs primarily an offence of ‘robbery’ under section 392 of IPC – Maintenance of public order” has a crucial bearing here and unless Government is justified in holding that act of detenu is prejudicial to maintenance of public order, preventive detention would be bad and would be in violation of Articles 21 and 22 of Constitution of India as it encroaches upon liberty and freedom of an individual – Nature of crime as alleged against petitioner can at best be said to be a law and order situation and not public order situation which would have justified invoking powers under Preventive Detention Law – Detenu is allegedly involved in four criminal cases where he has been granted bail – Even assuming allegations of prosecution to be correct, then too it only reflects a “law and order” problem and not a “public order” problem as mentioned under the Act – Bail had to be given as charge-sheet was not filed by police in all cases within stipulated period of 60 days – Fault lies with prosecution – In bail of this nature conditions are not liable to be imposed – 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 hard on freedom and liberty of an individual and cannot be exercised in a routine manner – State is not without a remedy, as in case detenu is much a menace to society as is being alleged, then prosecution should seek for cancellation of his bail and/or move an appeal to Higher Court – But definitely seeking shelter under preventive detention law is not proper remedy under facts and circumstances of case – Order of detention set aside. (Paras 3, 9 to 17 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad by which the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition bearing No. 35519 of 2021 of the petitioner-wife challenging the order of prevention of detention of her husband has been dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Order of detention dated 28.10.2021 and order dated 25.03.2022 of the Division Bench of High Court of Telangana are set aside. The detenu shall be released forthwith, in case he is not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the detenu's actions constituted a public order problem justifying preventive detention or merely a law and order situation manageable under ordinary criminal law. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. The actions reflected a law and order situation; preventive detention cannot remedy prosecution failures in filing charge sheets or the absence of bail conditions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 18 )
4. Preventive detention requires a threat to public order, a narrower concept than law and order; ordinary crimes affecting individuals do not necessarily disturb public order. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
5. Appeal allowed; detention order and High Court order set aside; detenu ordered to be released. (Para 19 )
6. What is the legal distinction between a law and order situation and a public order situation in the context of preventive detention?
Law and order is a broad spectrum including all disturbances. Public order is a narrower circle; a disturbance only affects public order if it impacts the community or public at large, rather than just individuals. Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder. (Para 15 )
7. Can preventive detention be invoked simply because a detenu has been granted bail in criminal cases?
No. If bail was granted due to prosecution failure, such as the failure to file a charge sheet within the stipulated period (default bail), the state cannot use preventive detention as a substitute for ordinary law or to remedy its own negligence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 )
8. Under what circumstances should the exceptional powers of preventive detention be exercised?
These powers are exceptional and strike at individual liberty; they must be exercised only in exceptional situations to prevent acts prejudicial to public order, and cannot be exercised in a routine or callous manner. (Para 15 , 18 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
1. This appeal challenges the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad by which the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition bearing No. 35519 of 2021 of the petitioner-wife challenging the order of prevention of detention of her husband has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the prevention detention order was passed against the husband of the petitioner on 28th October, 2021 by the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate on grounds that the detenu was involved in gold chain snatching offences, where victims were mostly women. He has been doing this since the year 2020 in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. He was involved in as many as 36 gold chain snatching offences. Earlier, the detenu, along with three others, had formed a gang to commit these offences in order to make quick money. It was alleged that they had come to Hyderabad in a car bearing No. AP 39 TU 5033 and took shelter in a lodge. Their modus operandi was to first conduct recce of some residential areas and after selecting a suitable residential area, lift two wheelers and motor cycles which were then used in the chain snatching offences. Although according to the Authority the detenu was involved in more than 30 cases but only 4 cases of chain snatching were considered as ground for detention, as the other cases were reported to be behind the proximity period and out of the jurisdiction of Commissionerate. The four cases on which reliance has been placed are as under:
“(1) Crime No. 355 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 392, 411 read with 34 IPC of Medipally Police Station.
(2) Crime No. 358 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 392, 411 read with 34 IPC of Medipally Police Station.
(3) Crime No. 532 of 2021 for the offence under Section 392 read with 34 IPC of Medipally Police Station.
(4) Crime No. 533 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 392, 411 read with 34 IPC of Medipally Police Station.”
3. In short, against the detenu the F.I.Rs primarily an offence of ‘robbery’ under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The detention order also says that the crimes were committed in broad day light and have thus resulted in creation of fear and panic in the minds of the general public, especially women and hence, the Government had to interfere in order to “maintain public order”.
4. The said four cases were allegedly committed by the detenu within a span of two months between 06.05.2021 to 26.07.2021 and were committed within the jurisdiction of one police station i.e., Medipalli police station. In all these cases, the detenu had moved bail applications before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and was granted bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C, which is commonly known as ‘default bail’ and the detenu was released on 16.10.2021. The detention order was later passed on 28.10.2021, which was subsequently confirmed by the Advisory Council on 13.01.2022, i.e., within the stipulated time. The detenu is under detention since 28.10.2021.
5. The Preventive Detention Law, under which the powers have been exercised is a long winded statute called the “ Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, 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”(hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). Powers have been exercised under Section 3 of the Act which reads as under:
“3. (1) The Government may, if satisfied with respect to any boot-legger, dacoit, drugoffender, goonda, immoral traffic offender [Land-Grabber, Spurious Seed Offender, Insecticide Offender, Fertilizer Offender, Food Adulteration Offender, F
