Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 67327

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJ
Aziz Hassan Kotadia – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.9893 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. Vidya Sagar, M. Vanajakshi
For the Respondents: Swaroop Oorilla

Preventive detention orders on habitual offenders are valid where material confirms repeated criminal activities causing public alarm. Judicial review is restricted to examining the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction and procedural compliance, rather than sitting in appeal on the findings.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention - Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority - Court does not sit in appeal over detention orders - Judicial review limited to compliance with Article 22(5) and whether grounds of detention are germane and not arbitrary. (Paras 7, 12, 13)

(B) Preventive Detention Law - Distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' - Habitual offender - Definition of 'Goonda' - A person who habitually commits offences under Chapters XVI, XVII or XXII of the Penal Code - Repeated acts of robbery in public places causing alarm and feeling of insecurity justify preventive detention to ensure public order. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 31, 32)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to declare an order of preventive detention illegal. The detenu was involved in two successive incidents of robbery in public jewellery shops, involving threats and physical injury to shop owners. The detaining authority passed the detention order classifying the detenu as a 'Goonda' under the relevant state law to prevent further prejudicial activities, despite the detenu being in judicial custody.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the grounds of detention were supported by specific evidence, including confessional statements, medical-legal records, and forensic laboratory reports. The court observed that the detenu's conduct, characterized by planning and repeated commission of violent crimes in public, demonstrated a clear intent to disrupt public order. The procedural requirements were duly satisfied, and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was based on relevant material.

Issues: The main issues were whether the detention order was based on a 'law and order' situation rather than 'public order', and whether the detention was invalid due to the detenu's existing judicial custody.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention is a 'jurisdiction of suspicion' focused on pre-empting future offences based on past conduct. An order is valid even while a person is in custody if the authority records compelling reasons. The court will not substitute its subjective satisfaction for that of the authority unless the order is irrational, vague, or reveals a lack of nexus between the activities and the danger to public order.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction and factual summary of the detention order. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' contentions regarding law and order vs. public order. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. scope of judicial review in habeas corpus and preventive detention. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. statutory framework of the 1986 act regarding public order. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
5. evidence and specific grounds supporting the detention order. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
6. application of 'habitual offender' criteria under the act. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
7. distinction between law and order and public order. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
8. court's final analysis, justification, and dismissal of petition. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether Her Ladyship wishes to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? : No

Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, the learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.M.Vanajakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus for setting the detenu at liberty and for declaring the detention order vide Order No:04/SB/PD-CELL/CYB/2024 dated 08.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 and the approval order vide G.O.Rt.No.1510 dated 12.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 as illegal and to set aside the said two orders.

2. The petitioner claims to be the father of the detenu. According to the petitioner, the impugned detention order has been passed mechanically only on the basis of two crimes of Robbery registered against the detenu by FIRs dated 14.02.2024 and 20.06.2024 which cannot be made the basis of a preventive detention order.

3. The brief facts leading to the impugned orders are as follows.

(i) On 14.02.2024, Crime No.65 of 2024 was lodged against the detenu under section 394 read with section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at Chaderghat Police Station. The detenu was arrested on 16.02.2024 for the said crime under the charge of Robbery. The detenu was thereafter released on bail on 08.04.2024.

(ii) A second crime was registered against the detenu vide Crime No.604 of 2024 on 20.06.2024 under sections 398 and 307 of the IPC at Medchal Police Station for which the detenu was arrested on 22.06.2024. On 04.10.2024 although the detenu was granted mandatory bail under section 167(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) due to non-filing of the Chargesheet, the detenu remained in judicial remand for non-furnishing of sureties.

(iii) The impugned detention order was passed on 08.11.2024 whereby the detenu was directed to be detained and lodged in the Central Prison, Cherlapally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The impugned detention order was approved by an order dated 12.11.2024 in G.O.Rt.No.1510 and thereafter confirmed by an order vide G.O.Rt.No.1645 dated 07.12.2024.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed to declare the impugned detention order as well as the approval order as illegal and contrary to the detenu’s rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Counsel submits that a Writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable when the petitioner establishes that the detention is unlawful. Counsel further submits that the acts of the detenu forming the basis of his detention do not qualify the definition of any act ‘prejudicial to maintenance of public order’ as given in section 2(a) 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 67327

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADMoushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJAziz Hassan Kotadia – AppellantVersusState of Telangana – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO.9893 OF 2025

Cases Referred (12)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJ
Aziz Hassan Kotadia – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.9893 OF 2025