Telangana High Court
Punam Meeku Parmar vs The State Of Telangana on 27 June, 2019
Author: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, Shameem Akther
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
Writ Petition Nos.2493, 2496, 2497, 2499 and 2501 of 2019
Date: 27.06.2019
Writ Petition No.2493 of 2019:
Between:
Punam Meeku Parmar.
...Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep.by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, and others.
...Respondents
Writ Petition No.2496 of 2019:
Between:
Shanti Bai Babulal Solanki
...Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep.by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, and others.
...Respondents
Writ Petition No.2497 of 2019:
Between:
Dallu Bai Ratanlal Solanki.
...Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep.by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, and others.
...Respondents
W.P.No.2493 of 2019 and Batch
2 HCJ & Dr. SAJ
Writ Petition No.2499 of 2019:
Between:
Radha Bai Beerchand Solanki.
...Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep.by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, and others.
...Respondents
Writ Petition No.2501 of 2019:
Between:
Dallu Bai Jeevan Solanki.
...Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep.by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. D. Purnachandra Reddy
Counsel for the respondents: The Advocate General
The Court made the following:
W.P.No.2493 of 2019 and Batch
3 HCJ & Dr. SAJ
COMMON ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble Dr.Justice Shameem Akther) Though the petitioners in these writ petitions are different, as the issue involved arises out of impugned orders of even date is same, they are being taken up together and disposed of by way of this common order.
W.P.No.2493 of 2019 is filed by Punam Meeku Parmar, W.P.No.2496 of 2019 is filed by Shanti Bai Babulal Solanki, W.P.No.2497 of 2019 is filed by Dallu Bai Ratanlal Solanki, W.P.No.2499 of 2019 is filed by Radha Bai Beerchand Solanki and W.P.No.2501 of 2019 is filed by Dallu Bai Jeevan Solanki. The petitioners herein are the wives of the detenus and they filed the present Habeas Corpus petitions, inter alia, on the ground that for a series of cheating, extortion and criminal breach of trust cases in which their husbands allegedly involved, the Commissioner of Police, Warangal, the respondent No.2, has passed preventive detention orders separately of even date dated 31.10.2018. The said orders were subsequently confirmed by separate Government orders of even date dated 09.11.2018, by the Principal Secretary to Government (POLL), Government of Telangana.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned orders.
The petitioners herein submit that on 31.10.2018, the respondent No.2 had passed the impugned detention orders ostensibly on the ground that their husbands were involved in four criminal cases of alleged cheating, extortion and criminal W.P.No.2493 of 2019 and Batch 4 HCJ & Dr. SAJ breach of trust, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 384 and 406 IPC against the detenus during the year 2018. Subsequently, the said detention orders were confirmed by the separate orders of even date dated 09.11.2018. Hence, the present petitions before this Court.
Mr. D. Purnachandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that a distinction has to be made between "law and order" and "disturbance of public order". The detenus are alleged to have committed series of offences of cheating, extortion and criminal breach of trust. The bail applications filed by the detenus in W.P.Nos.2493, 2496 and 2501 of 2019 were dismissed on 23.10.2018 and so far as the detenus in W.P.Nos.2497 and 2499 of 2019 are concerned, they did not file any bail application and hence all the detenus continued to be in judicial custody. Therefore, there is absolutely no necessity to pass the orders of detention against the persons who are in judicial custody. Further, according to the learned counsel, individual cases of cheating, extortion and criminal breach of trust would fall within the ambit of law and order problem, as such cases can be dealt with easily under the normal criminal justice system. In order to deal with these cases, the draconian preventive detention laws need not be invoked. Therefore, the invoking of the provisions of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act is an W.P.No.2493 of 2019 and Batch 5 HCJ & Dr. SAJ abuse of the process of law, and the action smacks of colourable exercise of power.
Secondly, these are the classic cases where the defenseless and voiceless persons may have been arrested, and may have been falsely implicated by the Police in order to claim that it has "cracked a large number of cheating, extortion and criminal breach of trust cases". Although the Police claim that the detenus resorted to cheating, extortion and criminal breach of trust by indulging and showing imitation gold chains as genuine gold chains, the articles were never even subjected to a test identification parade. Therefore, the omission on the part of the Police clearly reveals that they are trying to falsely implicate the detenus.
Lastly, that such indiscriminating use of the preventive detention laws are in violation of right to life and personal liberty, which is guaranteed by the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, both the detention orders and the confirmation orders deserve to be set aside by this Court.
On the other hand, Mr. S. Sharath, the learned Special Government Pleader, submits that even a series of cheating, extortion and criminal breach of trust cases are likely to cause panic and insecurity in the minds of the people. Since these four cheating, extortion and criminal breach of trust cases were committed by the detenus during the year 2018, the detaining authority was legally justified in passing the impugned orders.
W.P.No.2493 of 2019 and Batch 6 HCJ & Dr. SAJ Hence, the learned Government Pleader has supported the impugned orders.
In view of the submissions made by both the sides, the point that arises for determination in these Writ Petitions are:
"Whether the detention orders of even date dated 31.10.2018, passed by the respondent No.2 and the confirmation orders of even date dated 09.11.2018, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government (POLL), Government of Telangana, are liable to be set aside?"
POINT:
In the case of 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"54. We have here a case of detention under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules which permits apprehension and detention of a person likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It follows that if such a person is not detained public disorder is the apprehended result. Disorder is no doubt prevented by the maintenance of law and order also but disorder is a broad spectrum which includes at one end small disturbances and at the other the most serious and cataclysmic happenings. Does the expression "public order' take in every kind of disorders or only some of them? The answer to this serves to distinguish "public order" from "law and order" because the latter undoubtedly takes in all of them. Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does 1 AIR 1966 SC 740 W.P.No.2493 of 2019 and Batch
7 HCJ & Dr. SAJ not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. Suppose that the two fighters were of rival communities and one of them tried to raise communal passions. The problem is still one of law and order but it raises the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are. A District Magistrate is entitled to take action under Rule 30(1)(b) to prevent subversion of public order but not in aid of maintenance of law and order under ordinary circumstances."
In the case of Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal2, the Supreme Court has opined as under:
"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 the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. Public order is what the French call 'order publique' and is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. The test to be adopted in determining whether an act affects law and order or public order, as laid down in the above case, is: Does it lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed?"
2
(1972) 3 SCC 831 W.P.No.2493 of 2019 and Batch 8 HCJ & Dr. SAJ In the present cases, the detenus are said to be involved in four criminal cases and have been arrayed as A.4, A.3, A.1, A.2 and A.5, respectively, in the said crimes. However, the detaining authority relied on those four (04) criminal cases vide Crime Nos.307/2018, 352/2018, 211/2018 and 282/2018. We shall present in a tabular column the date of occurrence, the date of registration of FIRs, the offence complained of and their nature, such as bailable/non-bailable or cognizable/non-cognizable.
Date of
Date of
Crime No. registration Offences Nature
occurrence
of FIR
Sections 420 Non-bailable/
307/2018 of 04.05.2018 27.09.2018
& 384 r/w Cognizable
Inthegar Gunj PS
34 of IPC
352/2018 of 27.07.2018 16.08.2018 Section 420 Non-bailable/
Subedari PS of IPC Cognizable
Sections Non-bailable/
211/2018 of
03.08.2018 28.09.2018 420, 384 & Cognizable
Matwada PS
406 r/w 34
of IPC
282/2018 of 26.09.2018 Sections 420 Non-bailable/
25.08.2018
Hanmakonda PS & 384 of IPC Cognizable
There are two glaring facets of this case which have drawn the attention of this Court: Firstly, the detenus were arrested on 01.10.2018 in Crime No.211 of 2018, under Sections 420, 384 r/w 34 I.P.C of Matwada Police Station, Warangal. It is during the interrogation that, allegedly, the detenus made "a confessional statement", wherein they admitted their involvement in the other three cheating and extortion cases, which were alleged to have been committed by them during the year 2018. Secondly, the bail applications filed by the detenus in Writ Petition Nos.2493, 2496 and 2501 of 2019 were dismissed on 23.10.2018 and so far as the detenus in Writ Petition Nos.2497 and 2499 of 2019 are W.P.No.2493 of 2019 and Batch 9 HCJ & Dr. SAJ concerned, they did not file any bail application and hence all the detenus continued to be in judicial custody. Therefore, there is absolutely no necessity to pass the orders of detention against the persons who are in judicial custody. Instances are not lacking where the voiceless and defenseless persons are rounded up by Police, and are forced "to confess" their involvement in crime. According to criminal psychology, due to fear and coercion, even the innocent men and women are likely to confess to a crime, although such crimes may not have been committed by them. Such "confessions" are merely a means to escape the torture to which they are subjected. At times, the Police use certain means, which although are illegal, but help the Police in "cracking a case"
and in claiming that they have "solved the crime". Therefore, prima facie, a grave possibility does exist that the detenus were forced to confess to their involvement in cases of 2018.
Even otherwise, the cases of cheating, extortion and criminal breach of trust can easily be dealt within the ambit and scope of the general criminal justice administration. In catena of cases the Apex Court had already opined that the draconian power of preventive detention, which instantly deprives a person of his personal liberty, forces a person to be kept in custody without a fair trial and, that too, only on presumptions and suppositions, such powers should be exercised with great care and caution. Since the alleged criminal cases are against a particular individual, such cases fall within the ambit of "law and order W.P.No.2493 of 2019 and Batch
10 HCJ & Dr. SAJ problem". Therefore, the respondent No.2 was unjustified in issuing the preventive detention orders, dated 31.10.2018.
Even while passing the confirmation orders, dated 09.11.2018, the Principal Secretary to Government (POLL), Government of Telangana, has failed to notice that the detenus continues to languish as under-trials in the jail, as they were denied bail. Once the detenus were already confined, the question of confirming the detention orders would not even arise.
In the result, the Writ Petition Nos.2493, 2496, 2497, 2499 and 2501 of 2019 are allowed. The impugned detention orders of even date dated 31.10.2018, passed by respondent No.2, and the confirmation Government orders of even date dated 09.11.2018, passed by the respondent No.1, are set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenus, namely Mr. Meeku Nanwa Parmar, S/o. Nanwa Parmar, Raju Solanki S/o. Babulal, Ratanlal Harilal Solankli S/o.Harilal, Beerchand Hari Solanki S/o. Harilal and Bablu Jeevan Solanki S/o. Jeevan, at liberty forthwith, if they are no longer required in any criminal case.
The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, HCJ _____________________________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 27th June, 2019 grk/scs