Back
2017 Supreme(AP) 788
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Suresh Kumar Kait, U. Durga Prasad Rao, JJ.
Sama Aruna - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana rep. by Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 43671 of 2016
Decided On : 22-03-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s Bhardwaj Associates
For the Respondents: G.P. for Home
Headnote:
Penal Code – Sections 419, 420, 468, 363, 452, 323, 342, 386, 506 r/w Section 120B – Arms Act – Section 25(1) (b) – A.P. Land Grabbing Act – Section 4 – Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Decoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 – Detention – Petitioner has challenged detention order issued by second respondent and same has been confirmed by first respondent under provisions of Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Decoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 and consequently to direct respondents to release/set free her husband – Held, Person who has been habitually engaging himself in unlawful acts of committing kidnapping, cheating and extortion, which create a sense of insecurity in minds of public and pose threat to maintenance of peace and public tranquility in the society, such are obviously prejudicial to maintenance of public order – If such person is not curbed, he will continue to do same activities – Justification for passing detention order was that out of 4 cases registered against detenu, he filed bail petitions in 3 cases, and was released on bail – There was every likelihood that he might resort to similar offences of Kidnapping, cheating and extortion by threatening innocent people, which affect public order adversely – Court is of considered opinion that detaining authority had good grounds to detain detenu – There are no merits in instant petition – Writ Petition Dismissed (Paras 16, 18, 19, 20)
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Vide the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 23.11.2016 issued by the second respondent and the same has been confirmed by the first respondent under the provisions of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Decoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short the Act, 1986) and consequently to direct the respondents to release/set free her husband i.e., Sama Sanjeev Reddy.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the present petition, the petitioner states that her husband Sama Sanjeev Reddy (hereinafter referred to as detenu) was falsely implicated in the following offences:
(a) Crime No. 554 of 2013 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 506 I.P.C. (arrested on 11.11.2016)
(b) Crime No. 8 of 2014 of Adibhatla Police Station for the offences under Section 447 and 427 of I.P.C.
(c) Crime No. 361 of 2016 of Pahadi Sharief Police Station for the offences under Section 363, 384, 420, 120B of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the A.P. Land Grabbing Act and Section 25(1b) of the Arms Act.
(d) Crime No. 362 of 2016 of Pahadi Sharief Police Station for the same offences as shown above.
(e) Crime No. 367 of 2016 of Pahadi Sharief Police Station for the same offences as stated above.
(f) Crime No. 221 of 2016 of Adibhatla Police station for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 363, 452, 323, 342, 386, 506 r/w Section 120B of I.P.C. and Section 25(1) (b) of the Arms Act and Section 4 of the A.P. Land Grabbing Act.
3. The 4 out of 6 cases are concerning to the Gangster Nayeemuddin @ Nayeem. The grounds of detention would disclose that the second respondent has not applied his mind and erroneously invoked the provisions of the Act 1986. It would also disclose that there is no basis for imposing preventive detention on the detenu since the alleged involvement of the detenu is yet to be proved in the criminal Court and that even the allegations in the said crimes do not amount to committing breach of public order.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it is well settled law that imposition of preventive detention is very harsh and unconstitutional, unless there is a brazen conduct, which affects the tempo of public life. The said fact is missing in the present case. Thus, the preventive detention is ex-facie illegal. Collusion with Gangster Nayeem and involvement in some sale transactions does not warrant imposition of preventive detention. When there are criminal cases for regular offences, preventive detention cannot be resorted to. The grounds of detention are not falling into the arena of public order.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the 4 cases relied upon out of 6 cases mentioned above are all old cases, however the same are registered in the year 2016. The detenu has been detained by the detaining authority on the ground that the detenu has been involved in the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, kidnapping, extortion, criminal trespass and damaging landed property and threatening the owners of lands with dire consequences in order to grab their landed properties etc., Thus, the detenu has repeatedly committed crimes by creating constant fear and panic among the poor and innocent agriculturists in the limits of Adibhatla and Pahadi Sharief Police Station and caused a feeling of insecurity to their agricultural landed properties. Due to which, large sections of people are adversely affected by his unlawful activities. The detenu being the active member in the gang of most dangerous and notorious gangster Nayeemuddin @ Nayeem (who died in an exchange of fire on 08.08.2016 in the limits of shadnagar) has been indulging in unlawful activities of committing offences as noted above, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
6. Learned counsel further submits that all the offences are related to the year 2013-2014. However,
