IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SHAMEEM AKTHER, CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, JJ.
Mr. C. Abhayananda - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 34098 of 2021
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention - Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986 - Section 3(2) - NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 20 (b) (ii) (C)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition challenging the detention order passed under the Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986, based on a recent crime registered under the NDPS Act. The petitioner argued that the detention order was passed mechanically and without proper application of mind.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was unjustified as the alleged crime did not disturb public order and could be tried under the NDPS Act. The court also emphasized the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' as per Supreme Court precedents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the detention order and the confirmation order were liable to be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Supreme Court precedents to distinguish between 'law and order' and 'public order', emphasizing that preventive detention should be invoked cautiously and only when public order is disturbed.
Final Decision: The court set aside the detention order and directed the release of the detenu, stating that the impugned orders were legally unsustainable.
ORDER :
Shameem Akther, J.
Sri C. Abhayananda, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his son, Chetty Saichitra Anand, the detenu, challenging the detention order vide No.160/PD-CELL/CYB/2021, dated 18.11.2021, passed by the respondent No.3, whereby, the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.
3. The case of the petitioner is that basing on a recent solitary crime registered against the detenu viz., Crime No.515 of 2021 of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’), the respondent No.3 passed the impugned detention order, dated 18.11.2021. According to respondent No.3, the detenu is a ‘Drug Offender’, as he has been engaging himself in illegal and highly dangerous activities of peddling ganja among the innocent people in the limits of Cyberabad Police Commissionerate endangering the lives of the people especially youth, college students and daily labourers and causing irreparable damage to their Central Nervous System, thereby crippling the mental and physical health of the people at large and acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order and health as well. Subsequently, the impugned detention order was confirmed by the Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.343, dated 11.02.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned detention order has been passed in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. Already criminal law was set into motion against the detenu. The detenu got conditional bail in the solitary crime relied upon by the detaining authority vide order, dated 04.06.2021, passed in Crl.P.No.4044 of 2021 by this Court. But he was again sent to jail by invoking the draconian preventive detention laws on the apprehension that there is imminent possibility of the detenu again indulging in similar offence, which is unjustified. The alleged crime does not add up to “disturbing the public order” and it is confined within the ambit and scope of the word “law and order”. Since the offence alleged is under the NDPS Act, the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the said special law. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention law against the detenu. Hence, the impugned orders tantamount to colourable exercise of power. The impugned orders are legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to allow the Writ Petition, as prayed for.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents supported the impugned orders and submitted that the detenu is a ‘Drug Offender’. He has been indulging in peddling of ‘ganja’, a narcotic substance, endangering the lives of youth causing irreparable damage to their body organs including the central nervous system, thereby crippling the health of those addicted to drugs. The detenu got conditional bail in the solitary crime relied upon by the detaining authority. Therefore, the apprehension of the detaining authority that there is imminent possibility of the detenu indulging in similar offence, is not misconceived. The crime allegedly committed by the detenu was causing widespread danger to public health and detrimental to public order. Therefore, the detaining authority was legally justified in passing the impugned detention order. Further, the Advisory Board rendered its opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu and on considering the same along with the entire material on record, the Go
The main legal point established is the need for caution in invoking preventive detention, especially in distinguishing between 'law and order' and 'public order' as per Supreme Court precedents.
Detention order – Justified - Cases registered under the NDPS Act - Drug-offender – Exclusion of two criminal cases registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections....
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....
Point of law: It is the bounden duty of the Police to inform the learned Public Prosecutor about the conduct of an accused and to handover the history-sheet of the accused
Point of Law : Detention order - there is every possibility of detenu committing similar offences in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.- acts of the detenu cannot be ef....
The judgment establishes the principle that the invocation of preventive detention laws should be wary and that the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' must be carefully considered....
The distinction between 'public order' and 'law and order' is crucial in determining the justification for preventive detention under the P.D. Act, and the sufficiency of subjective satisfaction by t....
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.