Allowed

Dheeraj Madan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Jun 2022WP/6409/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions filed by detained individuals challenging their administration orders under the Telangana Preventive Detention Act. The High Court allowed the petitions as the offenses alleged pertained to 'law and order' rather than 'public order', rendering preventive detention impermissible when criminal proceedings were pending.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention orders are set aside. Petitioners are to be released forthwith if not required in other criminal cases. No order as to costs.

Dheeraj Madan 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

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶5

WRIT PETITION Nos.6403. 6405 and 6409 ot 2022

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6403 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ravi Babu Bapudi @ Babu, S/o. Bapudi, aged 38 years, Occ. Balloon Seller, Fl/o. Kolpiwda i (v), Kopargaon (Tq), Ahmed Nagar, Maharastra.

¶9

...'ET,T,ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Commissroner of Police and Addl. District Magistrate (Executive), Hyderabad City.

¶13

The Superintendent, Central Prison Hyderabad, at Chanchalguda.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 appropriate .Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing 3rd Respondent to produce the detenue i.e. Ravi Babu Bapudi @ Babu now detained in Central Prison Hyderabad, at Chanchalguda before this Honorable Court and set-aside the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd Respondent vlde SB (l). No.344lPDSlHYDl 2021, dt. 2611112021 and "conformation order, vide G.O.Rt.No.408 General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order) Department, dated 19.02.2022" by 1st Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, improper, unilateral, u nconstitutional and violative of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of lndia, and to forthwith release the Detenue.

¶16

(Prayer is amended as per Court Order, dated 26.04.2022 vide l.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.6403 oi 2022.)

¶17

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO: 6405 0F 2022

¶19

Between:

¶20

Rokesh, S/o. Late Suresh, aged 21^years, Occ. Balloon Seller, R/o. Tents near Hamali Basthi, Chilkalguda X Roads, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

...PETTT|ONER

AND

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

¶25

The Commir;sioner of Police and Addl. District Magistrate (Executive), Hyderabad^tlity.

¶26

The Superirtendent, Central Prison Hyderabad, at Chanchalguda.

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition unrler 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 appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing 3rd Respondent to produce the detenue i.e. Rokesh now detained in Central Prison Hyderabad, at Chanchalguda before this Honbl,: Court and set-aside the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide SB (l).No.346iPD-5lHYD/ 2021 , d|.26-11-2021 and "conformation order, vide G.O.Rt.No.410 General Administration^(Spl. (Law & Order) Department, dated 19.02.2022" by^'lst Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, improper, unilateral, unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 and 22 ot the Constitution of lndia, and to forthwith release the Detenue.

¶29

(Prayer is .amended as per Court Order, dated 26.04.2022 vide l.A.No,1 of 2022 in W.P.No.6405 ol 2022.)

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 6409 OF 2022

¶31

Between:

¶32

Dheeraj Madan, lS/o. Madan, aged 45 years, Occ. Balloon Seller, Rl/o. Tents near Hamali Basthi, Chilkalguda X Roads, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad,

¶33

AND

¶34

...PET|T|ONER

¶35

1 . The State rtf Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. General Administration (Spl. (Law and Order) Department, Secietariat, Hvderabad.

¶36

1. The Comnrissioner of Police and Addl District Magistrate (Execuiive), Hyderabac City.

¶37

The Super ntendent, Central Prison Hyderabad, at Chanchalguda

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affldavit 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 3rd Respondent to produce the detenue i.e. Dheeraj Madan now detained in Central ,^{Prison Hyderabad,at} Chanchalguda before this Hon'ble Court and set-aside the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide SB (l). No.345/PD-5/HYD/ 2021 , dt. 26-11-202'l and "confirmation Order vide G.O.Rt.No409, dated 19-02-2022 passed" by 1st Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, improper, unilateral, unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of lndia, and to forthwith release the Detenue and to grant

¶40

(Prayer is amended as per Court Order, dated 31.03.2022 vide l.A.No.'l ot 2022 in W.P.No.6409 of 2022.1

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner in all W.Ps.: SRI. PASHAM TRIVIKRAM REDDY

¶42

Counsel for the Respondents in all W.Ps: THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR AGP FOR HOME

¶43

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶44

THE HON.BLE DT, JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE ]UVVADI SRIDEVI

¶45

WRIT PETITION Nos.64O3, 64Os AND 64Oq OF 2022

¶46

COMMON ORDER: (Pe, rion'Dre or sA,r)

¶47

Though the petitioners in these Writ Petitions are different, the issue involved is same and therefore, all the Writ Petitiors are being taken up together and disposed of by way oF this r:ommon order.

¶48

W.P.No.6403 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner/detenu, namely, Rarri Babu Bapudi @ Babu, S/o Bapudi; W.P.No.6405 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner/detenu, namely. Rokesh, S/o late Suresh and W.P.No.6409 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner/detenu, namely/ Dheeraj Madan, S/o Madan. The petitioners herein filed the present Habeas Corpus petitions challenging the detention orders^yide SB(I) No.344lPD5/HYD/2021., SB(I) No.346lPD-5/HYD/202t and SB(I) No.345/PD-5lHYDl2O27 of even date dated 26.11.2027, passed by ,:he respondent No.2, whereby, the detenus were detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986), and the consequential confirmation orders vide G.O.Rt.Nos.40B, 470 and 409

¶49

¶50

General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, of even date dated 19.02.2022, respectively, passed by the respondent No.1.

¶51

We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents, in all these writ^petitions and^perused the record.

¶52

The case of the petitioners is that out of nine criminal cases registered against the detenus in the year 2021, basing on five crimes viz., Crime No.415 of 2O2l of Keesara Police Station, Crime No.114 ot 2021 of Karkhana Police Station, Crime Nos.376 of 202L and 394 of 2027 of Chilkalguda Police Station and Crime No.128 of 2021 of Lallaguda Police Station, the respondent No.2-the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, passed the impugned detention orders of even date, dated 26.LL.202L. According to respondent No.2, the detenus are 'Goondas', as they have been habitually committing burglaries in the limits of Hyderabad and Rachakonda Police Com m issionerates and thereby causing widespread fear and panic among the people by committing

¶53

slch oFferces and thus they have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order apart From disturbine the^peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society. Subsequently, the impugned detention orders were confirmec by the Government vide G.O.Rt.Nos.4OB, 410 and 409 of ev:n date dated 19.02.2022

¶54

Lea-ned counsel for the petitioners would contend that in all the writ petitions by relying on five cases registered against tl"e detenus in the year 2021, the impugned detention orders of even date, dated 26.11.2021 were passed. The alleged cases do not add up to "disturbing the public order". They are^,:onfined within the ambit and scope of the word "law and order". Since the offences alleged are under the Indian Penal Coce, the detenus can certainly be tried and convicted under the Indian Penal Code. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention law. Hence, the impugned orders tantamount to colourabler exercise of power. The bail petitions moved by the detenus in Crime No.376 of 202t of Chilkalguda Police Station were disnrissed by the Courts concerned. The bail petitions moved by the detenus in Crime No.114 of 202j. of Karkhana \ I

¶55

¶56

Police Station were returned on the ground that^police have already filed charge sheet. All the detenus were^granted bail in Crime No.12B ot 2O2L of Lallaguda Police Station. The detenu in W.P.No.6403 of 2022 admitted guilt in Crime Nos.376 of 2021 and 394 of 2O2l of Chilkalguda Police Station and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven months. Thus, the detenus in all the writ petitions continue to be in^judicial custody. In spite of the same, the impugned detention orders of even date, dated 26.11.2027 were passed on the apprehension that there is every possibility of the detenus moving bail petitions in the remaining cases, grant of bail to them and on release from jail, there is imminent possibility of their committing similar offences, unless they are prevented from doing so by appropriate orders of detention, which is unjustified. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority,in preventively detaining the detenus is tainted and illegal. Thus, the impugned orders are legally unsustalnable and ultimately, prayed to allow the Writ Petitions, as prayed for.

¶57

6.'./ On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government

¶58

Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents supported

¶59

-i

¶60

the impugned orders and submitted that the detenus are 'Goondas'. They have been habitually committing burglaries in the limits of Hyderabad and Rachakonda Police Commissic nerates and thereby causing widespread fear and panic amo'rg the people by committing such offences and thus acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order apart from disturbing the peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society. All the detenus were arrested in Crime No.114 of 202L of Karkhana Police Station and their arrest wa:i regularized in the remaining cases through PT warrants. Subsequently, the detenus moved bail petitions in Crime Nos;.114 of 2O2L of Karkhana Police Station, l2B of 2027 of Lallaguda Police Station and 376 of 2021 of Chilkalguda Police Station. The detenus were granted bail in crime No.12B of 2O2l of Lallaguda Police Station. Since the detenus granted bail In crime No.12B of 2O2l of Lallaguda Police Station, the apprehension of the detaining authority that there is imminent possibility of the detenus moving bail petitions in the remaining cases and grant of bail to them and on release from^judicial custody, there is every possibility of their comrnitting slmilar offences, is not misconceived. The

¶61

¶62

series of crimes allegedly committed by the detenus were sufficient to cause a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people at large. Therefore, the detaining authority was legally justified in passing the impugned detention orders. The impugned orders are legally sustainable and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions.

¶63

In view of the submissions made by both the sides, the

¶64

point that arises for determination in these Writ Petitions is:

¶65

"Whether the impugned detention orders vide SB(l) No.344/PD- 5/HYD/2021, SB(I) No.346/ PD- 5/HYD/2021 and SB(I) No.345/PD-5/HYD/2021 of even date dated 26.11.2021, passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential confirmation arders vide G.O.Rt.Nos.408, 410 and 409 of even date dated 19.02,2022, respectively^passed by the respondent No. 1, are liable to be set aside?"

¶66

POINT:

¶67

B. 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. Moreover, individual cases can be dealt with by the criminal justice system.

¶68

¶69

Therefore, there is no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconjan preventive detention Iaws against an individual. Hence, according to the Hon'ble Apex Court, the detaining authority should be wary of invoking the immense power unde:r the Act.

¶70

9 in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Biharl, the Hon'ble Su rreme Court has, in fact, deprecated the invoking of the preventive law in order to tackle a law and order problem. lt was observed that every breach of public peace and every violation of law may create a'law and order' problem, b -rt does not necessarily create a problem of 'public order'. The distinction has to be borne in mind n view of what has been sl.ated in the grounds of detention.

¶71

In Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengat2, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while discussing the meaning of word 'public ordt:r,' held that the question whether a man has only committed a breach of 'law and order' or has acted in a manner lik:ly to cause a disturbance of the'public order', is a

¶72

'^{AIR 1966 sc 740} ' ll9z2)^{3 sc{j83 l}

¶73

¶74

question of degree and extent oF the reach of the act upon the Society.

¶75

In the present cases, the detaining authority, basing on the crimes indicated above, has passed the impugned detention orders of even date, dated 26.11.2021 against the detenus. We shall present them in tabular form the date of occurrence, the date of registration oF FIRs, the offences complained oF and its nature, such as ba ila ble/non-ba ila ble or cognizable/non-cognizable.

¶76

CrimeNo,	Dateof Occurrence	Dateof registratio nofFIR	Offences	Nature I
415/2021 of KeesaraPS	07/oa.o7.2o2t	04.07.202t	Sections 457and 380 ofIPC	Cognizable/ Non Bailable
114/2021 of KarkhanaPS	r0.o7.2021	I0.07.2021	Sections 457 and 380ofIPC	Cognizable/ NonBailable
376/2027 of ChilkalgudaPS	t2/13.o7 .2027	13.o7.242t	Sections 457 and 380 ofIPC	Cognizable/ Non Bailable
394/2021 of ChilkalgudaPS	between 25.06.202tand 19.O7.202r	t9.07.2021	Sections 457and 380 ofIPC	Cognizable/ Non Bailable
l2Bot2O2lof LallagudaPS	Between 09.07.2021and t9.07.2021	19.07.2021 I	Sections457and 380 ofIPC I	Cognizable/ Non Bailable

¶77

As seen from the material placed on record, the crimes relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenus relate to lurking house trespass and aheft. Further, the detenus were arrested in Crime No.114 of

¶78

2021 of Karkhana Police Station and their arrest was

¶79

¶80

regularizec in the remaining cases through PT warrants. Subsequently, the detenus moved bail petitions in Crime Nos.114 of 2021 of Karkhana Police Station, 128 of 2O2l of Lallaguda Police Station and 376 of 2021 of Chilkalguda Police Station. All the detenus were granted bail in Crime No.128 of 202L of Lallaguda Police Station. The bail petitions moved by the detenus in Crime No.376 of 202L of Chilkalguda Police Station werre dismissed by the Courts concerned. The bail petitions nroved by the detenus in Crime No.114 of 2021 of Karkhana Police Station were returned by the Courts concerned on the ground that police have already filed charge sheet. Under these circumstances, the apprehension of the detaining ,authority that there is imminent possibility of the detenus rnoving bail petitions in the remaining cases and grant of bail to them and on release from judicial custody, there is every^possibility of their committing similar offences which would be detrimental to^public order unless they are prevented from doing so by orders of detention is highly misplaced. It is the bounden duty of the Police to inform the learned Public Prosecutor about the conduct of the detenu and to handover the entire case record available against the

¶81

¶82

detenus. The^police are supposed to be vigilant in collecting the whole data against the detenus and furnish the same to the Public Prosecutor/Additional Public Prosecutor to defeat the bail application/s of the detenus. Moreover, criminal law was already set into motion against the detenus. Since the detenus have allegedly committed 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 authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention law. Thus, the offences committed by the detenus in the aforesaid crimes relied on by the detaining authority do not fall within the ambit of the words "public order" or "disturbance of public order". Instead, they fall within the scope of the words "law and order". Hence, there was no need for the detaining authority to pass the impugned detention orders. The detaining authority cannot be permitted to subvert, supplant or substitute the punitive law of land, by ready resort to preventive detention.

¶83

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

L4. In th€ result, all the three Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned detention orders vide SB(l) No.344lPD5/HYD/2OZ L, SB(I) No.346lPD-5/HYD/202j and SB(I) No.345/PD-5/HYD/2021 of even date dated 26.11,2021, passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential confirmation orders vide G.O.Rt.Nos.408,410 and 409 of even date dated 19.02.2022, respectively passed by the respondent No.1, are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenus, namely, Ravi Babu Bapudi @ Babu, S/o Bapudi, Rokesh, S/o late Suresh and Dheeraj Madan, S/o Madan, at liberty forthwith, iF they are no longer required in any other criminal case.

¶88

Miscerllaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶89

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶90

¶91

To,

¶92

SD/.K.SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR l'

¶93

//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶94