Telangana High Court
Kunta Ranjith Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 29 April, 2022
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: Shameem Akther, Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.104 OF 2022
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther) Sri Kunta Ranjith Kumar, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition on behalf of his brother, Kunta Rathan Kumar, S/o. Balaraju, the detenu, challenging the detention order vide No.C2/8474/2021-M, dated 20.10.2021, 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.2782, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 16.12.2021, passed by the respondent No.1- Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana.
2. 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.
3. The case of the petitioner is that out of twelve crimes registered against the detenu, basing on four crimes viz., Crime Nos.9, 58 and 100 of 2021 of Sadashivanagar Police Station and Dr.SA, J & JS, J 2 W.P.No.104 of 2022 Crime No.66 of 2021 of Gandhari Police Station, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned detention order, dated 20.10.2021. According to respondent No.2, the detenu is a 'Goonda', as he has been habitually committing offences including voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation in the limits of Kamareddy District, thereby creating fear, terror and panic among the people and thus acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, apart from disturbing peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society. Subsequently, the impugned detention order was confirmed by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.2782, dated 16.12.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that relying on four cases registered against the detenu in the year 2021, the impugned detention order was passed. The alleged cases do not add up to "disturbing the public order". They are confined within the ambit and scope of the word "law and order". Since the offences alleged are under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the Indian Penal Code and the said special law. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention law. Hence, the impugned orders Dr.SA, J & JS, J 3 W.P.No.104 of 2022 tantamount to colourable exercise of power. Further, the detenu was granted conditional bail by the Courts concerned in all the four crimes relied on by the detaining authority and released from jail on bail. But he was again sent to jail by invoking the draconian preventive detention law on the apprehension that there is imminent possibility of his violating the bail conditions and committing similar offences, which would be detrimental to public order, unless he is prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of detention, which is unjustified. The impugned detention order has been passed without proper application of mind. Already criminal law was set into motion against the detenu. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian 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.
5. 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 offences including voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation in the limits of Kamareddy District, thereby creating fear, terror and panic among the public.
Dr.SA, J & JS, J 4 W.P.No.104 of 2022 The series of crimes allegedly committed by the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, apart from disturbing the peace, tranquility, and social harmony in the Society. Since the modus of committing the crime was voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation, it has created sufficient 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 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. 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.
6. In view of the submissions made by both the sides, the point that arises for determination in this Writ Petition is:
"Whether the impugned detention order vide No.C2/8474/2021-M, dated 20.10.2021, passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.2782, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 16.12.2021, passed by the respondent No.1, are liable to be set aside?"
Dr.SA, J & JS, J 5 W.P.No.104 of 2022 POINT:
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. 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.
8. In Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar1, 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.
1 AIR 1966 SC 740 Dr.SA, J & JS, J 6 W.P.No.104 of 2022
9. 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.
10. In the present case, the detaining authority, basing on four crimes indicated above, passed the impugned detention order, dated 20.10.2021. 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.
Date of Date of Crime No. registration Offences Nature Occurrence of FIR Sections 290, 427 and 506 of IPC -
Non-Cognizable/
Sections 290, Bailable
324, 427 and Section 324 of
506 read with 34 IPC -
of IPC Cognizable/
9/2021 of and Non-Bailable
08.01.2021 09.01.2021
Sadashivanagar PS Sections
3(1)(r)(s) and Sections
3(2)(Va) of the 3(1)(r)(s) and
SCs and STs 3(2)(Va) of the
(POA) Act SCs and STs
(POA) Act -
Cognizable/
Non-Bailable
2
(1972) 3 SCC 831
Dr.SA, J & JS, J
7 W.P.No.104 of 2022
Section 435 of
IPC -Cognizable/
Bailable
58/2021 of Sections 435 and
30.03.2021 01.04.2021
Sadashivanagar PS 290 of IPC Section 290 of
IPC -
Non-Cognizable/
Bailable
Sections 290,
Sections 290, 189 and 506 of
66/2021 of
16.06.2021 19.06.2021 189 and 506 of IPC -
Gandhari PS
IPC Non-Cognizable/
Bailable
Sections 332
and 353 of IPC -
Cognizable/
Non-Bailable
Sections 332,
100/2021 of 504, 506, 353
23.06.2021 23.06.2021 Sections 504,
Sadashivanagar PS and 186 read
506 and 186 of
with 34 of IPC
IPC -
Non-Cognizable/
Bailable
11. As seen from the material placed on record, all the crimes relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu relate to public nuisance, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons, mischief, criminal intimidation, mischief by fire or explosive substances, threatening public servant, insult, assault, voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty and obstructing public servant in discharging his functions. The detenu was arrested in connection with the said crimes and subsequently, he moved bail petitions and was granted conditional bail by the Courts concerned in all the crimes and he was released from jail. The conditional order of bail restricts the movement of the detenu and requires him to appear before the officer concerned Dr.SA, J & JS, J 8 W.P.No.104 of 2022 periodically. Under these circumstances, the apprehension of the detaining authority that since the detenu was released on bail, there is imminent possibility of his committing similar offence, 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 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 conditional bail by the Courts concerned in all the crimes relied on by the detaining authority, if it is found that the detenu violated the bail conditions or 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. Since the detenu has allegedly committed the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the said crimes can be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the Penal Code and the said Dr.SA, J & JS, J 9 W.P.No.104 of 2022 special law and there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention law. The offences allegedly committed by the detenu in all the four 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 order. The detaining authority cannot be permitted to subvert, supplant or substitute the punitive law of land, by ready resort to preventive detention.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and are liable to be set aside.
13. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order vide Order No.C2/8474/2021-M, dated 20.10.2021, passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.2782, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 16.12.2021, passed by the respondent No.1, are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenu, namely Kunta Rathan Kumar, S/o. Balaraju, at liberty forthwith, if he is no longer required in any other criminal case.
Dr.SA, J & JS, J 10 W.P.No.104 of 2022 The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J _________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 29-04-2022.
MD