Allowed

Angadi Uma v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC23 Aug 2021WP/12837/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order against a detenu already in judicial custody for theft offences.holding that individual crimes against specific persons constitute a 'law and order' problem rather than a 'public order' disturbance, making the detention order unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The detention order and confirmation order are set aside, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Angadi Uma Vs The State of Telangana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S ,; ;" :^j iifliiifi t]i,lll^ "^

¶2

lvoND3y,^TlE rwENry rHtRD DAy oF AUGUST TWo rHousAND AND rwer..rrv oruE""''

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC ,,.,o,1"-.. ; ; l,SgilIo"'^';;"

¶5

Between:

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOi 12837 oF 2021

¶7

Angadi Uma. w/o Angadi. suresh, aged 23 years, occ. Housewife, R/o. Rajurakothapaili viilage, fterrir,uouiivaffESi rtf"'n"oroabad Disrrict

¶8

AND ...PEIT|ONER

¶9

'1 The state of reranoana, rep. by its principar secretary to Government (poLL), Generat Administra-tion ispE.t ,,l i_;*';ni"";i;iD;;rd;"-ri'i;;;ujriili "., Hyderabad.

¶10

The Collector a nd District Ma g istrate, Ma ha bubnaga r, IVta habu bna garNJB,n:,S!r

¶11

¶12

Petition under Anicre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Habeas corpus drrecting the respondents to produce the detenue Angadi Suresh @ Suraiah @^Pallodus/o. Angadi Venkataiah, aged 31 years, occ.Labour, R/o. Brock No.16, Rajeev Gruhakalpa, Thorrur village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, N/o. Raju lakotha pa lli Village, Nellikuduru Mandal, Mahabubabad District before this Honble court and release him forthwith after declaring the order of detention vide No.Rev/C1lLnOIOOO1t2021-C-section Dated. 041022021 passed by the second respondent and confirming the order of detention in G.O.Rt.No.920,Dated.17l04l2O21 passed by the first respondent as highly arbitrary, bad, illegal and voilative of principles of natural justice

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶14

Counsel for Respondents: SRI A. MANOJ KUMAR, AGP FOR HOME FOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

¶17

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEA'RA]ASHEI(ER REDDY} AND THE HON'BLE^{Dr' IUSTICESHAMEEM AKTHER} 1 w RITP^{ETITIONNo. 18370F20}

¶18

ORDER:^{(Per Hon'bleor' lustice ShameemAkther)}

¶19

Smt. Angadi^{Uma, the petitioner' has filed this Habeas} Corpus^{petitionon behalfof her husband, namely Angadi Suresh@} Suraiah @^{Pallodu, Slo'AngadiVenkataiar' the detenu'} challenging the^{detention order vide deten:ionordervide} No.Rev/C1llno/ooo1/^{2021-C-Section, dated 04 O2'202t, passed} by the respondent^{No,2,whereby, the detenuweis detainedunder} Section 3(2) of the^{Telangana Preventive Detentir)nAct, 1986 (Act} 1of 1986), and the consequential^{confirmation order vide} G.O.Rt.No.920, General Administration^{(Spl. (Law &Order))} Department, Government of Telangana, dated¹⁷ 04.2021.

¶20

2, Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitroner, Sri A.Manoj Kumar, learned Assis:ant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that basingl on four recent crimes registered against the detenu viz., Crim€ Nos.150, 151 & 152 of 2020 of Midjil Police Station an I 194/2020 of Talakondapally Police Station, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned detention order, dated 04.O2.2021. According to respondent N0.2, the detenu is a 'Goonda', ils he has been habitually committing burglaries in the police station limits of Mahabubnagar District, thereby creating large scerle fear and panic \ -' .-/

¶22

among^{general public, which is adversely-affecting the public} order. Subsequently,^{the impugned detention order was confirmed} by the Government,^{vide G,O'Rt'No'920, dated 77'04'202t'}

¶23

4, Learned counsel^{for the petitioner would contend that the} impugned detention^{order has been passedin amechanical} manner and^{without applicationof mind' The detenu was arrested} on 29.12.2020^{in connectionwith Crime No'15O/2020of Midjil} Police Station^{and basing on his confessionin the said crime'he} was implicated^{in the remainingthree cases' Further' all the four} crimes relied^{by the detaining authorityare under investigation and} charge-sheets^{are not yet filed in any of the cases' Already} criminal^{law was set into motion against the detenu The bail} petitions moved by the^{detenu in all the four crimes relied by the} detaining authority^{were dismissed by the Courts concerned and} the detenu^{is still in judicial custody' Despite the fact that the} detenu is^{in judicialcustocly,still the preventivedetention order} has been^{passed against him Further' the alleged crimes do not} add up^{to "disturbingthe public order" and theyare confinedwithin} the ambit^{and scope of the word "law and order"' Since the} offences^{alleged are under the Indian Penal Code' the detenu can} certainly^{be tried and convicted under the penal code' Thus'there} was no^{need for the detaining authorityto invoke the draconian} preventive detention^{law against the detenu' Hence' the impugned} orders^{tantamountto colourable exerciseof power'Further'the} detenu^{was earlier detained under the provisionsof the Telangana} Preventive^{DetentionAct, 1986(Act 1 of 1986), vldeProceedings} No.C1l1105/2018,^{dated l7'O7 2O:,8' passedbv the Collectorand}

¶24

ARR,J & D[.SA,J .,) w.P No.l2a37 of 2021

¶25

District Magistrate, Mahabubabad District,^{for hisalleged} involvement in theft cases. The said detention order^{was also} confirmed by the Government vide order, dated^12.10.2018. Challenging the said detention order, the^{p3titioner filed} W.P.No.439B0 of 2018 before this Court and this Cotrrt,^{vide order,} dated 20.06.2019,^quashed the said detention ordr:r^holdingthat the crimes (theft cases) relied by the detaining authority^therein were committed against^particular individuals and therefore^would amount to'law and order problem'but would not disturb^public order. The detenu was again implicated in the sub.iect theft cases by the^police for statistical^purposes and was detained under the draconian preventive detention laws. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is illegal ancl tainted. The impugned orders are legally unsustainable and ult mately, prayed to allow the Writ Petition, as prayed for.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned Assista 1t Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents supported the impugned orders and submitted that the detenu is a 'Goonda,. He has been habitually committing theft of gold ornarnents, cash and other valuables by entering the locked houses by breaking doors in the police station limits of Mahabubnagar Distri:t. He is also habituated to commit theft of two wheelers to make easy money and lead lavish life. The criminal acts of detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Though the bail petitions moved by the detenu in all the four cases were dismissed by the Courts concerned, the apprehension of the detaining auttlority that there is eyqy likelihood of granting bail by the Courts (oncerned to the

¶27

¶28

ARR,J & Dr SA,J W r'.No 12a37 oi 2O2i

¶29

detenu in due course and after release on*bail, there is imminent possibility of the detenu indulging in similar activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order unless he rs prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of detention, is not misconceived. The crimes allegedly committed by the detenu created a large scale fear and panic among the general public, Therefore, the detaining authority was legally justified in passrng 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, the Government confirmed the impugned detention order vide G.O.Rt.No.920, dated L7.04.202L. All the mandatory requirements were strictly followed by the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. The impugned orders are legally sustainable and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitio n .

¶30

6, In view of the submissions made by both the sides, the point that arises for determination in this Writ petition is:

¶31

"Whether the impugned detention order vide No.Rev/Cl / LnO/OOOl / 2027-C-Section, dated O4.O2,2O27, passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.92O, General Administration (Spl, (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, dated 77,04,2027, are liable to be set aside?"

¶32

BQI.M,:

¶33

7, In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly opined that there is a vast difference between^"law and order"^and

¶34

ARF,J & llr^SA,.l W t'j.No.1li]:17 ol2O2l

¶35

¶36

"public order".^{The offences committed again:;t aparticular} individual fall within^{the ambit of "law and order" and when the} publicatlargeisadverselyaffectedbythecriminalactivitiesofa person, such activities of that^{person are said to di:;turbtne pJblic} order. Moreover,^{individual cases can be dealt with by the criminal} justice system. Therefore, there is no^{need fo| the detaining} authority to invoke^{the draconianpreventive detentionlaws against} an individual.^{Hence, according to the Hon'bleI'pex Court,the} detaining authority^{should be wary of invoking the mmense power} under the Act.

¶37

In Ram Manohar^{Lohia v. State of Biharl, the Hon'ble} Supreme Court has, in^{fact, deprecated the irlvoking of the} preventive law in order to tackle a law and^{order p roblem. It was} observed that every breach of^{publicpeaceand every violationof} law may create a 'law and order'^problem, but does^{not necessarily} create a problem of 'public order'. The distinction^ras to^{be borne} in mind in view of what has been stated in -he^grounds of detention.

¶38

In Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal2, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while discussing the meaning of worrl 'public order,' held that the question whether a man has only committed a breach of 'law and order' or has acted in a manner lik.ely to cause a disturbance of the'public order', is a question of degree and extent of the reach of the act upon the Society.

¶39

"-l

¶40

\ l? l,Li,1,,sf l 11) ll i l:t .l Sr't'$': I

¶41

6 ARR,J & Dr.SA.j w.P.No.t2aJ7 ot 2O-tl

¶42

In the present case, the detaining aEthority, basing on four crimes indicated above, passed the impugned detention order, dated 04.02.2021. we shalr present them in a taburar form the date of occurrence, the date of registration of FIR, the offence complained of and its nature, such as bailable/non_bailable or cog n iza ble/non-cog n iza b le.

¶43

CrimeNo.	Dateof Occurrence	Dateof registration ofFIR	Offences	Nature
1-5012020of MidjilPoliceStation	Interveninqnjqht of18/79.t2.2A20	79.12.2020 i	Sections457& 380ofIPC	Cognizable/ NonBailable
151/2020 or 'MldjilPoliceStation	78.12.2020	79.12.2020	Section 379IpC	Cognizable/ Non-Bailable
't^tsz/zozoof iMidjilPoliceStation I	Between 77.12.2020and 79.\2.2020	79.72.2020	Sections457& 380ofIPC	Coqnizable/ Non-Bailable
794/2020of Talakondapally PoliceStation	Between 19,12.2020and 26.12.2020	26.12,2020	Section 379IPC	Cognizable/ Non-Bailable

¶44

As seen from the material placed on record, in all the four crimes relied by the detaining authority, the detenu moved bail petitions and the said bail petitions were dismissed by the Courts concerned. Thus, the detenu continues to be in^judicial custody. Under these circumstances, the apprehension of the^detaining authority that there is every likelihood of^{granting bail by the Courts} concerned to the detenu in due^{course and after release on bail,} there is imminent^{possibility of the detenu indulging in similar} activities which are^{prejudicialto maintenance of publicorder} unless he is^{preventedfrom doing so by an appropriateorder of} detention, is highly^{misplaced. Criminallaw was alreadyset into} motion against the detenu. Since^{the detenu hasallegedly} committed offences^{punishable underthe IndianPenal Code, the} said crimes can be effectively^{dealt with underthe provisionsof the} < Penal Code-and there was no^{need for the detaining authorityto}

¶45

Aiiii.'1^i\IrSL'l ,7 w I^{No ilil:]]} 'ri _11)11

¶46

invoke^{draconian preventive detentionlaws''the detainlng} authority^{cannotbe permitted to subvert' supplant or substitutethe} punitive^{law of land' by ready resort to preventive detention'}

¶47

t2, Here,^{it is apt to state thatacts which are sinlilar in nature'} circum:;tances,^might but committed^{in different contexts and} it might^{affect sPecific} cause different^{reactions' In one case'} individuals^{only, and thereforewouldamou nt to 'law andorder} problem' only,^{while in another'it might affect tlre public order'} Some^{infractions of law may lead to disturbanceof 'law and order"} but every^{infractionof law does not necessarilyresult in 'public} disorder',^{In the instantcase, graveas the offence';may be' in the} given circumstances^{of the case, theyare conlmitted ag ainst} pu blic at large.^Hence, particular individuals^{and not the general} no inference of^{disturbance of publicorder can be drawn The} subject cases^{can certainly be tried under the nortnalcriminal law} and, if convicted,^{can certainly be punished by the Court of law'} Thus, the instant^{four crimes do not fall within the ambit of the} words"publicorder"or"disturbanceofpublicordet"'Instead'they fall within the scope^{of the words "law and order"'Hence'there} was no need for the^{detainingauthority to pass the impugned} detention order.^{For the foregoing reasons,the impugnedorders} are legally unsustainable^{and are liable to be set a:;ide'}

¶48

Even while^{passing the confirmation order ditted 77'04'2021,} thePrincipalsecretarytoGovernment,GeneralAcministration(Spl (Law and Order)) Department,^{Government of Telangana,has} failed to notice that the^{detenu continuesto languish as under-trial}

¶49

¶50

, ,, ,;11')':;.i; 1,,;iir:,'

¶51

in the jail. Once the detenu was already.?onfined, the q uestion of confi rming the detention order would not even arise.

¶52

L4. In the result, the Writ petition is allowed. The impugned detention order vide No.Rev/C1lLn O/OOOI/2021_C_ Section, dated 04.02.2021, passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.920, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated t7.O4.2021 , passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & order)) Department, Government of rerangana, are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenu, namery Angadi Suresh @ Suraiah @ pallodu, S/o. Angadi Venkataiah, at liberty forthwith, if he is no longer required in any other criminal CASC.

¶53

The Miscellaneous^petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

' SD/.K,VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t,/...//TRUE COPY// lit^' sEcTlouglEr ICER To, 1 . The Principal Secretary to Government^{(POLL), General Administration(Special} Law and order) Departhent, State of Telangana^{Secretariat,Hyderabad.} 2. The Collector 6nd bistrict Maqistrate,^{N,4ahabubnagar, l,4ahabubnagarDistrict} 3. The Superintendent, Central^{Prrson, Cherlapalli,l',4edchal Malkajgiri District}

¶55