Allowed

Dasari Sammakka v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC23 Aug 2021WP/12845/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition for Habeas Corpus challenging a preventive detention order. The Court held that since the detenu was already in judicial custody for similar offenses, the detention was a colourable exercise of power to substitute criminal law with preventive detention, as the crimes did not disturb public order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order and confirmation order were set aside, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

I\4ONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND

¶5

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O:12845 OF 2021

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

D.asari Sammakka, W/o... Narsaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ. Coolie, R/o. Munrgalaveedu Village, Nellikuduru Ir.4andaj, Mahabu5abad District.

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its principal Secretary to Government (POLL). General Administratron (special Law and order)^'Department, Secietariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The collector and District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District.

¶13

,..RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenue Dasari Murali Krishna sio Dasari Narsaiah, aged 26 years, occ. Labour, R/o. Block No.16, Rajeev Gruhakalpa, Thorrur village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Nio. Erukalaguda, Munigalaveedu Village, Nellikuduru Mandal, Mahabubabad District, before this Hon'ble court and release him forthwith after declaring the orcler of detention vide No.Rev/c1lLno1000212021-c-section Dated. 0410212021 passed by the second respondent and confirming the order of detention in G.o.Rt.No.922, Dated. 1710412021 passed by the first respondent as highly arbitrary, bad, illegal and voilative of principles of natural justice.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDy

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A. MANOJ KUMAR, AGp FOR HOME FOR THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKERREDDY} AND THE HON'BLE^{Dr. IUSTICESHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶19

WRIT PETITI^ON o.Lz 845 F20 2,.t

¶20

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

¶21

Smt. Dasari^{Sammakka,the petitioner, has fi ed this Habeas} Corpus^{petition on behalf of her son, namely DasaritvluraliKrishna@} Murali, S/o.^{Dasari Narasaiah, the detenu,challengirg the detention} order vide detention^{order vide No'Rev/C1lLnO/OOO2/2021-C-} Section, dated 04.O2.202L,^{passed by the ret;pondentNo'2'} whereby, the detenu^{was detained under Secticn 3(2) of the} Telangana Preventive^{Detention Act, 1986(Act 1 of 1986),and the} consequential confirmation^{order vide G'O'Rt'Nc'922,General} Aclministration^{(Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Governmentof} Telangana, dated 17.04.2021.

¶22

2, Heard Sri P,Prabhakar Reddy,^{learned counsel forthe} petitioner, Sri A.Manoj Kumar, learned^{Assistant Go\ ernment Pleader} for Home appearing for the learned^{AdditionalAdvc'cate General for} the respondents and^perused the^record.

¶23

The case of the^petitioner is that basing on^{three recent crimes} registered against the detenu viz., Crime^{Nos.150, 151 & 152of} 2O2O of Midjil Police Station, the respondent^{No.2 passedthe} impugned detention order, dated 04.02.202L. According^to respondent No.2, the detenu is a'Goonda', as he ha:; been^habitually committing burglaries in the^police station limits of Mahabubnagar District, thereby creating large scale fear and^pani(r among^general public, which is adversely affecting the public order. Subsequently,

¶24

..-.*d-l.-4+-

¶25

¶26

AAR,J & Dr^SA,J W.P No 128't5^{ot 2O21}

¶27

¶28

the impugned^{detention order was confirmed by the Government'} vide G.O.Rt.No.922,^{dated 17.O4'2021'}

¶29

4, Learned counsel^{for the petitioner would contend that the} impugned detention^{order has been passed in a mechanical manner} and without^{applicationof mind' The detenuwas arrested on} 29.12.2020^{in connectionwith Crime No 150i 2020 of MidjilPolice} Station and^{basing on his confessionin the said crime' he was} implicated in the^{remaining two cases Further, all the four crimes} relied by the detaining^{authority are under investigation and charge-} sheets are^{not yet filed in any of the cases' Alreadycriminal law was} setintomotionagainstthedetenu.Thebailpetitionsmovedbythe detenu in all^{the three crimes relied by the detainingauthoritywere} dismissedbytheCoUrtsconcernedandthedetenuisstillinjudicial custody.Despitethefactthatthedetenuisinjudicialcustody,still the^{preventivedetention order has been passed againsthim} Further, the alleged^{crimes do not add up to "disturbingthe public} order" and they^{are confinedwithin the ambit and scope of the word} "law and order". Since the^{offences allegedare under the Indian} Penal Code, the^{detenucan certainly be tried and convicted underthe} penal code. Thus, there^{was no need for the detainingauthorityt0} invoke the draconian^{preventive detention law against the detenu'} Hence, the^{impugned orders tantamountto colourable exerciseof} power. Further, the detenu^{was earlier detainedunder the provisions} of the Telangana^{Preventive DetentionAct, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986)'} vide Proceedings, dated^{20.02.2020,passed by the Collector and} DiStrict Magistrate,^{MahabubabadDistrict, for his alleged involvement} inseveraloffences,andoncompletionoftwelvemonthsdetention period, the detenu was^{releasedfrom jail on 22'02'2020' The detenu}

¶30

."-''"

¶31

Alili..l^{li i)r SA,l} !i,r I' i,lf^I lsri^{(if lolI}

¶32

was again^{implicatedin the subject theft cases by the police for} statistical^{purposes and was detained underthe dracc'nian preventive} detention^{laws. The subjective satisfactionrecorded )y the detaining} authority^{is illegal and tainted'The impugned orlers are legally} unsustainableandultimately,prayedtoallowthetNritPetition'as prayed for

¶33

On the other^{hand,the learned Assistant GovernmentPleader} for Home^{appearing for the respondentssupported the impugned} orders and^{submitted that the detenu is a 'Goondir''He has been} habitually^{committinghouseburglaries and theft of two wheelersin} the^{policestationlimits of Mahaboobnagar District' therebycreating} large scale^{fear and panic among the general pub ic'The criminal} acts of^{detenuare prejudicial to the maintenanceof publicorder'} Though the^{bail petitions moved by the detenu in all the threecases} were dismissed^{by the courts concerned, the apprehensionof the} detaining^{authoritythat there is every likelihoodof grantingbail by} the Courts^{concernedto the detenuin due course and after release} on bail, there^{is imminentpossibility of the detenuirdulgingin similar} activities^{which are prejudicial to maintenanceof public order unless} he is^{preventedfrom doing so by an appropriateorcler of detention'is} not misconceived.^{The crimes allegedlycommittedby the detenu} created a^{large scale fear and panic among the generalpublic'} Therefore,thedetainingauthoritywaslegallyjustifiedinpassingthe impugned detention^{order'Further, the AdvisoryBoardrendered its} opinion that^{there is sufficientcausefor detention of the detenuand} on considering^{the same along with the entire material'the} -d&ernment confirmed the impugned detelltion order vide G,o.Rt.No,g22,dated:_T.o4.2o2l,Allthemandatoryrequirements

¶34

-^_____ _-

¶35

Arrl.,^qi i.: !1. .1 !v i rlr) I^i:1:.i -rr)-r,

¶36

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 Petition.

¶37

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

¶38

"Whether the impugned detention order vide No. Rev /C1/ LnO/OOO2/ 2027-C-Section, dated 04.02.2027,^passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential conf irmation order vide G.O.Rt.No,922, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, dated 17,04,2027, are liable to be set aside?"

¶39

POINT

¶40

7, In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly opined that there is a vast difference between "law and order" and "public order". The offences committed against a particular individual fall within the ambit of "law and order" and when the^public at large IS adversely affected by the criminal activities of a person, such activities of that person are said to disturb the public order lvloreover, individual cases can be dealt with by the criminal^justice system. Therefore, there is no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws against an individual Hence, according to the Hon'ble Apex Court, the detaining authority should be wary of invoking the immense^power under the Act.

¶41

In Ram Manohar Lohia v, State of Biharl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in fact, deprecated the invoking of the preventive law in order to tackle a law and order problem. It was observed that every breach of^publicpeace and every violation of law may create a'law and order' problem, but does not necessarily create

¶42

'AIR^{t964, sc 740}

¶43

Al l.:,,, ,!. L.jL :rir.. lV l' ll,/ llna5.i -li)

¶44

a problem of 'public order'. The distinction has to be borne in mind in view of what has been stated in the grounds of detention.

¶45

In Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal2, the Hon'ble Apex

¶46

Court, while discussing the meaning of word 'public order,' held that the question whether a man has only committed a breach of 'law and order' or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the 'public order', is a question of degree and extent of the reach of the act upon the Society.

¶47

In the present case, the detaining authority, basing on three crimes indicated above, passed the impugned detent on order, dated 04.02.2027. We shall present them in a tabular fc,rm the date of occurrence, the date of registration of FIR, the offence complained of and its nature, such as bailable/non-bailable or cognizable/non-

¶48

cog n iza ble.

¶49

CrimeNo.	Dateof Occurrence	Dateof registration ofFIR	Offences	Nature
750/2020of MidjilPoliceStation	Intervenin of78/79.1 ight 020 gn 2.2	79.72.2020	Sections457 &:i80 OfIPC	Cognizable/ Non-Bailable
75L/2020of IYidjilPoliceStation	18.L2.2020	19.L2.2020	Section379IP:	Cognizable/ Non^-Bailable
752/2020 ot 1.4idjilPoliceStation	Between 77.12.2020and L9.72.2020	19.12.2020	Sections457&:80 ofIPC	Cognizable/ Non-Bailable

¶50

As seen from the material placed on record, in all the three crimes relied by the detaining authority, the detr-.nu moved bail petitrons and the said bail petitions were dismisserl by the Courts concerned. Thus, the detenu continues to be in ';udicial 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

'^{(1972)3 scc83 I}

t:l

()

of the detenu^{indulging in similar activities} is imminent PossibilitY to maintenance^{of public order uniess he is} which are Prejudicial so by^{an appropriate order of detention'is} prevented^{from doing} highly misplaced.^{Criminallaw was already set into motion against} the detenu.^{Since the detenu has allegedlycommitted offences} punishable under^{the Indian Penal Code' the said crimes can be} effectively^{dealt with under the provisions of the Penal Code and there} was no^{need for the detaining authoritytoinvoke draconian} preventive detention^{laws'The detaining authority cannotbe} permitted to^{subvert, supplant or substitutethe punitive law of land'} by ready^{resortto preventive detention'}

¶55

12, Here,^{it is apt to state that acts which are similarin nature'but} committed^{in different contexts and circumstances' mightcause} different^{reactions'In one case' it might affect specific individuals} only,^{and therefore would amountto 'law and order problem' only'} while^{in another, it might affect the public order' Some infractions of} law may^{lead to disturbanceof 'law and order"but every infraction of} law does^{not necessarily result in 'publicdisorder" In the subject} th ree^{crimes, g raveasthe offencesmay b€, inthe given} circumstances^{of the case, they are committed againstparticurar} individuals^{and not the general publicat large' Hence' no inference} of disturbance^{of public order can be drawn' The subject cases can} certainly^{be tried underthe normalcriminal law and' if convicted'can} certainly^{be punished by the Court of law' Thus'the instantthree} crimes^{do not fall within the ambit of the words"public order" or} "disturbance of^{public order"' Instead'they fall withinthe scope of} the words^{"law and order"' Hence' there was no need for the} detaining^{authorityto pass the impugneddetention order' For the}

¶56

ARR.J & l).^SAJ W.P.No.1'.1a45^{of 2o2l}

¶57

¶58

foregoing^{reasons, the impugned orders are legally unsustainableand} are liable to be^{set aside.}

¶59

Even while^{passing the confirmation order dated 17'04'2021'} the Principal^{Secretaryto Government, General Administration(Spl} (Law and Order))^{Department, Government of Telangana' has failed} to notice that the^{detenu continues to languish as urder-trial in the} jail. Once the detenu was^{alreadyconfined' tlequestion of} confirming the^{detention order would not even arise'}

¶60

L4. In the result,^{the Writ Petition is allowed' The impugned} detention order^{vide No.Rev/C1/LnO/OOO2/2021-C-section' dated} 04.O2.2OZL,^{passedby the respondent No'2, and the consequential} confirmation order^{videG.o.Rt.No.922,General Adn inistration(spl'} (Law & Order)) Department,^{dated 17'04'2021,passed by the} Principal Secretary^{to Government, GeneralAdministration(Spl' (Law} & Order))^{Department,Governmentof Telangana,are herebyset} aside. The^{respondents are directedto set the detenu, namely Dasari} Murali Krishna @^{Murali, S/o.DasariNarsaiah,at lib-'rty forthwith' if} he is no longer^{requiredin any other criminal case'}

¶61

The Miscellaneous^{Petitions,if any, pendingin this Writ Petition}

¶62

shall stand closed.^{There shallbe no orderas to cotts'}

¶63

S D/-I.NAGALAKSHMI AS!iI STANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// SE NO FICER on^(Special To, 1. The^{PrinciPal Secretary toGovernment(POLL),General} Secretariat,^AdminHY derabad State^{of Telangana,} Law and^order) Department, Mahabubn^agat, Ma rabubnag^{ar District} 2. 3. The The^{Collector SuPerintena} ndD^{de nt,} istrict Mag^{Central Prison,} istrate,^{CherlaPalli, Medchal MalkajgiriDistrict} 4. One^{CCto Sri P. Prabhakar ReddY,AdvocateIOPUCI} ate General,^{HighCourtfor theSt;rte of Telanganaat} 5. Two CC^{s to The Advoc} Hvd erab^ad. [oUT] 6. Two CD^CoPies. 7. On e Spare^CoPY. I,1P.f'

HIGH^COURT

DATED:2310812021

ORDER

WP.No.12845^{of 2021}

¶68

1 sE STA jrc
k
ou 0 I sEP 2021
4 *
oFsp,1:rCtt.r.-O

¶69

ALLOWING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

Dasari Sammakka v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Sammakka v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Rajashekar Buggaveeti Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Arcot Rajya Laxmi Vs State Bank of India

Mohd. Azharuddin Vs Mr. K. John Manoj

Smt. Bijju Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Angadi Uma Vs The State of Telangana and another

Bijili Sammakka Vs The State of Telangana