Allowed

Pinnapureddy Geetha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jun 2022WP/9827/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition regarding preventive detention. It held that the detenu's offences constituted 'law and order' issues, not 'public order'. The detention order was set aside as legally unsustainable since criminal law was in motion.

What did the court decide?

The detention order and the confirmation order are set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith if no longer required in any other case.

Pinnapureddy Geetha Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENry SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON,BLE DT, JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER THE HoN,BLE srvrr utH%e JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9827 oF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Labour, R/o. H Pinnapureddy Geetha. No.4-i_s' Wo ord pinnapureddy Srinivasa Reddy, aged Harium-an-i#;8,;ttr'prr, RltuiJL 46 i,r-rdJr"yea rs, Mandal,Occ: KV Rangareddy District, Telangana State.^{-r'-' ' 'lrrer}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telanoana,. Rep. by its principal Secretary, General Admrn istration (Spt (La"w ano oio5i1 D6p",fi ";i,' 5Jft tariat, Hyderabad The Commissioner ofCommissioner of

¶12

The Commissioner ofCommissioner of Police and Addl. Dishict Magistrate, (Executive)

¶13

Warangal District.

¶14

3 The Superintendent, centrar prison cherlapaily, Medchar - Markajgiri District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Arlicre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more partrcularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas corpus, directing 3rd Respondent to produce the detenue i.e., Pinnapureddy yogender prasad Reddy @ yogi now detained in centrar Prison cherrapafly, tvredchar-Markajgiri District before this Hon,bre court and set-aside the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide c No. 621AruRc/csB-xri2o2 1 , dated 1 7. 1 1 . 2021 and confirmation order vide G'O'RI' No' 300 Generar Administration (Spr. (Law & order) Department dated 05-02-2022 by the 1.t Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, improper,

¶17

¶18

unilateral, unconstitutionar and viorative of Articre 21 and 22 of the constitution of lndia and to forthwith release the Detenue_

¶19

Prayer is amended as per court order dated 14.o6.2o22vide r.A.No.r of 2022.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner: SRt pASHAM TR|VIKRAM REODY

¶21

9:y.1-"LLol^{the Respondents: Asst. Govt pteader} for Home THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

I {

¶24

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

¶25

WRIT PETITION o.9827 OF 2022

¶26

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

¶27

Mrs. Pinnapureddy Geetha, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of her son, Pinnapureddy Yogender Prasad Reddy @ Yogi, S/o. Srinivas Reddy, the detenu, challenging the detention order vide C.No.62UWRC/CSB-XI/2O21, dated 17.1..2021, passed by the respondent No.2, 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.300, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 05.02.2022, passed by the respondent No.1.

¶28

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

¶29

The case of the petitioner is that basing on four (4) crinles viz., Crime Nos.1B9 of 2O2l of Geesugonda Police Station, 400 of 2021 and 413 of 2O2l of Hanamkonda Police Station and^{235 of} 2O2i of Narsamoet Police Station, the^respondent No.2^{passed the} ,rnpyl detentaon order, dated 17.1L.2O2t. According to

¶30

Dr.SA,J&- , 2 Vt.P-No.9427 of 2022

¶31

respondent No.2, the detenu is a 'Goonda', as he has been habitually committing theft cf three wheelers and two wheeler vehicles and robberies in the limits of Warangal, Rachakonda and Cyberabad Police Commissionerates, in an organized manner, thereby creating large scale fear and panic among the general public, thus adversely affecting the public order, peace and tranquility in the area. Subsequently, the impugned detention order was confirmed by the Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.300, dated 05.02.2022.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned detention order has been passed in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. Already criminal law was set into motion against the detenu. The detenu was granted bail by the Courts concerned in all the four (4) crimes relied upon by the detaining authority. But he was again sent to jail by invoking the draconian preventive detention laws on the apprehension that since the detenu was released on bail, there is imminent possibility of his committing similar offences, which is unjustified. The alleged crimes do not add up to "disturbing the public order,. and they are confined within 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 authority to invoke the draconian

¶33

DT.SAJ&JS.J J W .P.No.9427 of 2022

¶34

preventive detention law against the detenu. Hence, the impugned orders tantamount to colourable exercise of power. The impugned orders are legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to allow the Writ Petition, as prayed for.

¶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 habitually committing theFt of two wheeler/three wheeler vehicles, parked at public places like in front of hospitals, offices and other public places and also resorting to robberies by assaulting the victims to make easy money and to lead a lavish life, in the police station limits of Warangal, Rachakonda and Cyberabad Commissionerate and thereby acting in a manner prejudicial to the malntenance of public order. Since the detenu was granted bail in all the four (4) crimes relied by the detaining authority, the apprehension of the detaining authority that there is imminent possibility oF the detenu committing similar offences, is not misconceived. The sei'ies of crimes allegedly committed by the detenu were sufficient to cause a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people at large. Since the modus of committing the crime was theft and robberies, it has created sufricient panic in the minds of the general public. Therefore, the detaining authority was legally^justified in^passing the impugned detention order. Further, the^{Advisory Board rendered} :ts opinion

¶36

Dr SA,J& ,l 4 \ .P Na.9a27 ol 2022

¶37

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.300, dated 05.O2.2022. 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 Petition.

¶38

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

¶39

"Whether the impugned detention order vide C.No.621/WRC/CSB-XI/2021, dated 17.11.2021, passed by the respondent No.2, and the cansequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.300, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, dated 05.02.2022, passed by the respondent No.7, are liable to be set aside?"

¶40

POINT:

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

Dr. SA,J&JS,J ) \N.P.No.9A27 of m22

¶44

order. Moreover, 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.

¶45

In Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Biha+, 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 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 Bengatz, 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

'^{AtRtg66 sc z+o}

¶48

2 (t972l 3 scc 831

¶49

6 Dr SA,J&w .P .No 9827 of 2022

¶50

In the present case, the detaining authority, basing on four (4) crimes indicated above, has passed the impugned detention order, dated 17.11.2021. We shall present them in a tabular form 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_ cognizable.

¶51

CrimeNo.	Dateof Occurrence	Dateof registration ofFIR	Offences	Nature
189/2O2tof Geesugonda^pS	30.07.202L	08.08.2021	Section 394ofIpC	Cognizable/ Non Bailable
4OO/202tot HanamkondapS 4L3/2021 ot HanamkondapS l	10.08.2021 27.OA.2021	26.08.2021 04.09.202r	Section 379ofIpC Section 379ofIpC	Cognrzable/ NonBailable Cognrzable,/ Non Bailable I
235/2021of Narsampet^pS	o2.o9.2021	05.09.2021	Section 379ofIpC	Cognizable/ Non Bailable

¶52

As seen from the material placed on record, the four (4 ) crimes relied upon by the detaining authority for preventivery detainang the detenu relate to theft and voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery' Further, the detenu was arrested in connection with the said crimes and subsequently, he moved bail petitions in all the four crimes and he was granted bail by the Courts concerned in all the fou r crlmes and he was released from jail. Under these circumstances, the apprehension of the detaining authority that since the detenu was released from judicial remand on bail, there is rmminent possibility of his committing similar offences, which would

¶53

Dr. SA,J&JS,J W -P.No.9A27 of 2022

\ \

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 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, in the instant case, since the detenu was granted bail by the Courts concerned, if it is found that the detenu is involved in Further crimes, the prosecution can apprise the same to the courts concerned and seek cancellation of bail. Moreover, criminal law was already set into motion against the detenu. Further, since the detenu has 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 allegedly committed by the detenu in the four (4) crimes relied 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 order. The detaining authority cannot

¶58

Dr.SA.J&-8 w-P-No-9827 ol2O22

¶59

i I I

¶60

¶61

be permitted to subvert, supplant or substitute the punitive law of land, by ready resort to preventive detention.

¶62

L2. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and are liable to be set aside.

¶63

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order vide C.No.621IWRC/CSB-XL/2021, dated 17.tI.ZOzt, passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.300, General Administration (Spt. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 05.02.2022, passed by the respondent No.1, are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenu, namely Pinnapureddy Yogender Prasad Reddy @ yogi, S/o. Srlnivas Reddy, at liberty forthwith, if he is no longer required in any other criminal case.

¶64

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶65

SD/.K.SHYLESHI

¶66

//rRUE coPY//^{ot"'*:Tt?!:lll,} SD/.K.SHYLESHI , - SECTION OTFIbCR

¶67

To, 1 The Principal Secretary, General Administration (Spl. (Law and Order) Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, HyaeraOaO.

¶68

2 The commissioner of pJtice'and Addt.'D[i;i-ilrragistrate, (Executive) Warangal District.

¶69

3 The Superintendent, centrar prison cherlapaily, Medchar - Markajgiri District 4 q One Two CCs CC to SRI PASHAM TR|VIKRAM to the Advocate General, High Court neOOf^'nJ".c"t. tor tfre State of 1OeUC1felangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶70