Allowed

Smt. Parveen Begum v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Telangana HC15 Jun 2022WP/14268/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a mother for the release of her son detained under the Telangana Preventive Detention Act. The Court set aside the detention and confirmation orders, holding that the relied-upon offences constituted 'law and order' issues rather than 'public order' disturbances.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order and consequential confirmation order were set aside, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith if no longer required for any criminal case.

Smt. Parveen Begum Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 14268 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Parveen Begum, Wo. Saleem Hussain, Aged about 48 years, Occ ; Housewife, Rio.H.No.17-3-30213711, Murtuza Nagar, lmli Ban, Charminar., Hyderabad.

¶9

.,.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary General Administration (Spl. (Law and Order) Department, Secretariate, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City.

¶13

J The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Hyderabad.

¶15

5 The lnspector of Police, Mirchowk Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶16

b The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the Respondent No. 5 to produce the detenue viz., All Hussain who is presently lodged in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad before this Honourable Court,, and set aside the impugned detention order passed by the Respondent No.2 vide SB (l) No. 264lPD-7lHYDl2021 , dated.2211012021 and the - said order has been confirmed by the Respondent No. 1 vide G.O. Rt. No. 2386, dated. 0111112021 and G.O. Rt. No. 35, dated. 0610112022, is as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unilateral, unconstitutiona I and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of lndia and against the principles of natural^justice and forthwith release the detenue in the interest of^justice.

¶19

l.A.NO:1 OF 202,1

¶20

Petition Ur der Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the operation of the order vide SB (l) No. 264lPD-7lHYDl2021 , dated.2211012021 and the said order has been confirmed by the Respondent No. 1 vide G.O. Rt No. 2386, dated.01/1 112021 and G.O. Rt No 35, dated: 0610112022, pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of .justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s.BlBl AYESHA MOHAMMED

¶22

Counsel for the [tespondents : ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER

¶24

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI WRIT PETITION o.14268 0F 2022

¶25

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)

¶26

Smt. Parveen Begum, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of her son, Ali Hussain, the detenu, challenging the detention order vide SB(I).No.264lPDl/HYD/2021, dated 22.10.2021, passed by the respondent No.2Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, whereby, the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986), and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.35, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 06.01.2022, passed by the respondent No.1.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by relying on two crimes registered against the detenu in the year 2O2l viz., Crime No.20 of 2021 of Mirchowk Police Station

¶29

1 Dr.SA,J & JS,J w.P-No.14268 ot 2022

¶30

registered f,>r the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.^{and Crime} No.66 of 202L of Mirchowk Police Station registered^{for the} offence under Section 386 I.P.C., the^{respondentNo.2, passed the} impugned detention order, dated 22.L0.2027,^{having reachedto} the satisfac:ion that the acts of the detenu are^{prejudicial to} maintenanc(: of public order. Subsequently, the^impugned detention order was confirmed by the Government,^vide G.O.Rt.No.35, dated O6.0L.2022. The crimes relied on by the detaining authority does not add up to^"disturbing the^public order" and they are confined within the ambit and scope of the words "law and order". Since the offences alleged are under the Indian Penal Code, the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the lndian Penal Code. Further, the detenu was^granted conditional bail by the Courts concerned in both the crimes relied on by the detaining authority and was released from jail. But, the detenu was again sent to^jail by invoking the draconian^preventive detention law. The detaining authority was of the apprehension that since the detenu was released on bail in the aforesaid two criminal car;es, there is every possibility of the detenu committing similar offr:nces. The same is without any basis. Hence, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to allow the: Writ Petition, as prayed for.

Dr.SA,J & JS,J W.P.No.l4268 of 2022

¶35

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 'goonda,. He has been committing offences including attempt to murder and extortion using dangerous weapon in the limits of Hyderabad Police Commissionerate. Apart From the two ground cases relied on by the detaining authority, earlier the a"t"n, committed six crimes in the years 2018 to 2020. After release on bail in Crime No.20 of 2021, since the detenu violated the bail conditions, the State has filed an application before the Court concerned seeking cancellation of bail, but the same was dismissed. Further, the State has also filed an application seeking cancellation of bail in Crime No.66 of 2O2l in view of the past history oF the detenu and to prevent him from further indulging in similar offences, but the same was also dismissed by the Court concerned. The satisfaction reached by the detaining authority is not misconceived. The crimes relied on by the detaining authority amounts to disturbance of public order at large. Therefore, the detaining authority and the Government are^justified in^passing the impugned orders. The lmpugned orders are legally^{sustainableand ultimately,prayed to} dismiss the Writ P6tl[ion.

¶36

4 Dr.SA,J & JS.J w P.No.14268 of2022

¶37

In vie\v oF the submissions made by both the sides, the^point that arises f rr determination in this Writ Petition is:

¶38

"Whetlrcr the impugned detention order vide SB(I).tUo.264/PD-7/HYD/2027, dated 22. 10.202 1,^passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential confirmation order tide G.O.Rt.No.35, General Administration^{(Spl. (Law} & Order)) Department, dated 06.01.2022, passed by the respor,dent No.7, are liable to be set aside?"

¶39

POINT

¶40

In cal:ena 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 flll 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. Moreover, individual cases can be dealt with by the criminal justice sys:em. Therefore, there is no need for the detaining authority 1:o 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 und()r the Act.

¶41

¶42

¶43

Dr.SA.J & JS,J w.P.No.14268 of 2022

¶44

)

¶45

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

¶46

In Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal2, the Hon'ble Apex 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 two crimes indicated above, has passed the impugned detention order, dated 22.10.2021. We shall present them in a tabular form the date of occurrence, the date of registration of FIRS, the offences complained of and its nature, such as baila ble/non-baila ble or cogniza ble/non -cog niza ble.

¶48

I AIR 1966 sc 740

¶49

7 11972]| 3 SCC 83 t

¶50

Dr SA,J & JS,J $ P No.1,1268 of2022

¶51

¶52

CrimeNo. I	Dateof Occurrence	Dateof registration ofFIR	Offences	Nature
20/2021 ot MirchowkPS I	o1.02.2021	01,o2.2021	307l.PC	Non-bailable/ cognizable
66/202raf MirchowkPS	26.O3.2021 I	27.O3.2021.	386I,P,C	Non bailable/ cognizable

¶53

As see,1 from the material^placed on record, the^impugned detention orcler is^passed by^placing reliance on the aforesaid^two crimes, which relate to attempt to murder and extortion. The acts of the detenr.r cause fear in the minds of the victims only and it will not cause fear among the^public at large. So, the accusations levelled against the detenu in the aforesaid crimes do not add up to "disturbin,l the public order" and they are confined within the ambit and scope of the words "law and order". Further, the detenu was granted conditional bail in both the crimes relied on by the detaining authority and was released from jail. Furthermore, the applications filed by the State seeking cancellation of ball granted to tre detenu in both the crimes were dismissed by the Court concerned. Under these circumstances, the apprehension of the detaininr; authority that there is imminent possibility of the detenu comrlitting similar offences, which would be detrimental to public order, unless he is prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of detention, is highly misplaced. It is the bounden duty of the Police to inform the learned^{public prosecutor}

¶54

Dr.SA,J &JS,J W.P-No.14264 ol 2022

I I

lt I

about the conduct of the detenu and to handover the entire case record available against the detenu. The police are supposed to be vigilant in collecting the whole data against the detenu and furnish the same to the Public Prosecutor/Additional Public Prosecutor to defeat the bail application/s of the detenu. Further, the finding recorded by the detaining authority that the acts of the detenu are adversely affecting the public order and causing widespread fear in the minds of the public at large is without any basis. Since the detenu has committed the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the said crimes can be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The detaining authority cannot be permitted to subvert, supplant or substitute the punitive law of land, by ready resort to preventive detention.

¶59

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and are liable to be set aside.

¶60

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order vide SB(I). No.264 /PD-7 /HYD/2021, ciated 22.L0.202L, passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.35, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 06.0L.2022, passed by the respondent No.1, are hereby set aside

¶61

Dr'SA,J &^JS,J w.P.No.14268^{of 2022}

The resPoncents^{aredirected to set lhe detenu 'namelyAli} Hussain,^{S/c,. Saleem Hussain' at liberty forthwith' if he is no} longer^{required in any other criminal case'}

¶66

The Miscellaneous^{Petitions' if any' pending in this Writ}

¶67

There shall^{be no order as to costs'} Petition^{shall stand closed'}

¶68

SD/. G. ESHA ASSISTANT TRAR

//TRUE COPYII

sEcTtoN oFFtcER