Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO & ANIS, JJ.
G. Neeraja - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 17192 of 2015
Decided on : 07-10-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:G.L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Home.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 2 – Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 – Detention order – Challenged - Writ petition is preferred by the wife challenging the correctness and legality of the detention order passed by the Commissioner of City Police which order of detention is confirmed by the State Government through their orders General Administration Department. Commissioner of Police in the grounds of detention passed by him has adverted to as many as 9 instances of gold chain snatchings allegedly indulged in by the first of those 9 instances relates to crime on the file of Police Station which was registered based upon an incident which took place at complainant in that case was sitting in her petty and his associates came on a bike and informed the complainant that they are taking photographs of all the shops and they will conduct a draw of lots for presenting 2 gold coins to the winner and his associates, it is alleged that made the complainant believe that if she can give her gold chain for inspection by them so that they can think of presenting a similar gold chain to her she emerges as the winner of the draw soon as the unsuspecting complainant parted with her gold chain believing the representation made by and his associates escaped from the scene with the gold chain before the complainant could realise what was for her was remanded to judicial custody in connection with the said case, however criminal Court later on released him on bail 2nd incident which almost comprises of a similar event that took place at hours involving a shop keeper at Heritage Parlour and General Store Opposite Old MLA quarters 3rd incident relates to the one that took place the complainant in that case is a girl student, who was sitting in a and attending to small time business activity there. It is alleged that the approached the shop around the Afternoon on a motorbike and asked for a particular chocolate while the complainant was checking for the stock snatched away gold chain weighing about from her neck –Held, Court have very recently decided course of that judgment have categorically pointed that an identically worded provision contained in the Maharashtra State Act has fallen for consideration before the Supreme Court in and the Supreme Court rejected a similar contention canvassed before it in Para 31 of the judgment rendered in the above case. Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgment rendered wherein the Supreme Court held that the scheme of the Act authorises a possible detention of more than 3 months. Court have also noticed that both these judgments rendered by the Supreme Court earlier have not been adverted to in Mani’s case court have preferred to follow the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in and the judgment of the Supreme Court in For the same reasons, court reject the contention canvassed by the learned counsel in this regard. However court have noticed the 9 instances which the Commissioner of Police has based his satisfaction upon are the events that took place in a span of 6 to 7 months between the middle of up to the end was apprehended, and he was remanded to judicial custody and by several orders passed by the competent criminal courts, court was granted bail. It is not the case of the Commissioner of Police that was not complying with the conditions of grant of such bail or that he was misusing such liberty detention order was passed which is nearly 6 ½ months away from the last of the events reported Therefore, there was a loss of continuity in between the events and the order of detention instances relied upon for arriving at the subjective satisfaction must be proximately close to the order of detention and they cannot be far remote and removed In the instant case, the events are all far remote and removed to the order of detention – Writ petition is allowed.
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
1. This writ petition is preferred by the wife of the detenu challenging the correctness and legality of the detention order passed by the Commissioner of City Police on 13.02.2015, which order of detention is confirmed by the State Government through their orders in G.O.Rt.No.1138, General Administration (Law and Order) Department, dated 20.04.2015.
2. The Commissioner of Police in the grounds of detention passed by him has adverted to as many as 9 instances of gold chain snatchings, allegedly indulged in by the detenu. The first of those 9 instances relates to crime No.628/2013 on the file of Ghatkesar Police Station which was registered based upon an incident which took place on 16.12.2013 at about 15.00 hours. The complainant in that case was sitting in her petty kirana shop, when the detenu and his associates came on a bike and informed the complainant that they are taking photographs of all the shops and they will conduct a draw of lots for presenting 2 gold coins to the winner. The detenu and his associates, it is alleged that made the complainant believe that if she can give her gold chain for inspection by them so that they can think of presenting a similar gold chain to her, in case, she emerges as the winner of the draw. As soon as the unsuspecting complainant parted with her gold chain believing the representation made by the detenu as bonafide, the detenu and his associates escaped from the scene with the gold chain before the complainant could realise what was instore for her. Though he was remanded to judicial custody in connection with the said case, however, the criminal Court later on released him on bail. The 2nd incident, which almost comprises of a similar event that took place on 27.03.2014 at about 11.00 hours involving a shop keeper at Heritage Parlour and General Store, Opposite Old MLA quarters, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. The 3rd incident relates to the one that took place on 25.04.2014, the complainant in that case No.142/2014 is a 17 year old girl student, who was sitting in a petty kirana shop and attending to small time business activity there. It is alleged that the detenu approached the shop around 12.15 in the Afternoon on a motorbike and asked for a particular chocolate while the complainant was checking for the stock, the detenu snatched away gold chain weighing about 1 tula from her neck. The detenu was arrested on 10.08.2014 and he was released on bail on 15.10.2014. The remaining 5 other cases also relate to instances relating to snatching gold chain from unsuspecting women folk who are attending to petty kirana shops. The 6th incident which is concerned to crime No.291/2014 is based upon an event which took place on 28.07.2014 involving a 68 year old complainant, who is running his kirana shop at Maruti Nagar, behind DBR Mill, Lower Tank Bund road, when the detenu and his associates introduced themselves as representatives of biscuits and chocolates manufacturers and that they will be supplying the commodities and would also give free gifts of cooling box and a gold ring. With a view to check the size of the gold ring worn by the complainant, the unsuspecting complainant removed his gold ring and gave it to the detenu and soon thereafter, the detenu has allegedly vanished therefrom with the gold ring. The accused in that case were released on bail on 16.01.2015. These 9 instances which the Commissioner of Police has relied upon occurred between 16.12.2013 to 31.07.2014 and in the month of July 2014 itself as many as 5 instances out of these 9 cases have occurred.
3. Heard Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.Venu Gopal, learned Government Pleader for Home.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions in support of his plea that subjective satisfaction of the Commissioner of Police is vitiated and that the order of confirmation passed by the State Government is equally vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitione
