IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
P.NAVEEN RAO, P.SREE SUDHA, JJ.
Shajahan w/o. Shaik Ismail - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.16921 OF 2021
Decided On : 16-11-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – 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, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar of Financial Offenders Act, 1986 - Section 3(2) - Commissioner holds that detenu has been committing series of offences of theft of cell phones and cash from passengers travelling in sharing auto-rickshaws and theft of two wheeler vehicles in limits of Hyderabad and Cyberabad Police Commissionerate along with his associates, in an organized manner, creating large scale fear and panic among general public affecting public order - Government accorded approval to said detention order - Petitioner contends that offences alleged against detenu are only minor offences under Indian Penal Code, and merely because five crimes were registered against him and merely because he is categorized as ‘goonda’, is no ground to resort to preventive detention - Offences alleged against detenu are crimes against individuals - They are only affecting ‘law and order’ and in no manner they affect public order - Whether in facts of case preventive detention of detenu is valid.
Finding of the Court:
Out of five crimes, three crimes relate to theft of two wheeler motorcycles and two crimes relate to theft of cell phones, in addition, in one crime theft of cash is also alleged - These are normal law and order crimes, which require investigation, filing of final report and to prosecute them before jurisdictional criminal Court - It cannot be said that crimes registered against petitioner inevitably lead to a harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among general public or any section - By very nature committing of such crimes does not affect in any manner public order - If detaining authority apprehends that since detenu was released on bail, there would be imminent possibility of his committing similar offences, nothing prevented detaining authority in seeking cancellation of bail - Since criminal law is set in motion against detenu, same shall be taken to logical end - No justification is made out to resort to extraordinary power of preventive detention - Setting aside detention of co-accused in two out of five crimes registered against this detenu - Those two crimes relate to theft of mobile phones in shared auto-rickshaws.
Result: Writ Petition allowed
ORDER :
P.Naveen Rao, J.
The Commissioner of Police & Additional District Magistrate (Executive), Hyderabad, in exercise of power under Section 3(2) of “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, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar of Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986), passed orders of detention dated 26.03.2021. The Commissioner holds that the detenu has been committing series of offences of theft of cell phones and cash from the passengers travelling in sharing auto-rickshaws and theft of two wheeler vehicles in the limits of Hyderabad and Cyberabad Police Commissionerate along with his associates, in an organized manner, creating large scale fear and panic among the general public affecting the public order. The Government accorded approval to the said detention order. The Advisory Board reviewed the case on 17.05.2021 and affirmed the decision to detain. Based on the said report of the Advisory Board, the Government passed orders of confirmation of detention under Section 12(1) read with Section 13 of the Act No.1 of 1986, valid for a period of 12 months from the date of detention i.e., 16.04.2021. Petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, assails the said order of detention.
2. Heard Ms. Bibi Ayesha Mohammed, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for learned Additional Advocate General for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the offences alleged against the detenu are only minor offences under Indian Penal Code, and merely because five crimes were registered against him and merely because he is categorized as ‘goonda’, is no ground to resort to preventive detention. The offences alleged against the detenu are crimes against the individuals. They are only affecting the ‘law and order’ and in no manner they affect the public order. Against his arrest, detenu approached the competent criminal Court and on due assessment of material on record, criminal Court granted bail. After release on bail, he was not involved in any further crime and, therefore, based on the alleged offences the Commissioner of Police ought not to have exercised the extraordinary power of detention. He further submits that detention order was passed against one Mr.Syed Sahil on the ground of involvement in the crimes of kidnapping a baby girl, theft of cell phones and cash from the passengers travelling in sharing auto-rickshaws and two of the crimes are same. Against the order of detention of Mr.Syed Sahil, W.P.No.14323 of 2021 was filed and this Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the order of detention.
4. Though learned Government Pleader does not dispute the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.14323 of 2021 setting aside the detention, he submits that said detenu was involved in three crimes, whereas the detenue herein involved in five crimes and is classified as ‘goonda’. Therefore, detenu is not entitled to the same relief as granted in W.P.No.14323 of 2021. As the detenu is habituated in committing crimes of theft of mobile phones, cash and two wheelers, causing lot of hardship and suffering to the innocents, his enlargement would affect the public order.
5. From the detention order, it is clear that Crime No.31 of 2020 registered in Raidurgam Police Station, Crime No.8 of 2020 registered in Kachiguda Police Station and Crime No.1157 of 2020 registered in Rajendranagar Police Station are under Section 379 IPC alleging theft of two wheeler motorcycles. In Crime No.11 of 2021 registered in Mailardevpally Police Station under Sections 379 and 411 IPC, it is alleged that detenu boarded an auto-rickshaw at Aramghar cross roads and on the way detenu and
If the detaining authority apprehends that since the detenu was released on bail, there would be imminent possibility of his committing similar offences, nothing prevented the detaining authority in ....
(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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exceptional nature of preventive detention, the need for subjective satisfaction by the authority, and the importance of strict compliance with....
The satisfaction of the authorities under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grab....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between law and order and public order, emphasizing that the activities must have the potential to disturb the public peace and ....
Preventive detention must be justified by a clear disturbance to public order, not merely by allegations of individual offenses.
(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 main legal point established in the judgment is that activities must have the potential to disturb public order by affecting the community or public at large to be considered prejudicial to publi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of justifying the invocation of preventive detention laws and the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' in determini....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.