Telangana High Court
Mudrakola Kranthi Kumar vs State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 14 June, 2021
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: A.Rajasheker Reddy, Shameem Akther
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION No.1470 OF 2021
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther) Sri Mudrakola Kranthi Kumar, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his father, Mudrakola Venkatesham, S/o. Rajaiah, the detenu, challenging the detention order, dated 20.10.2020, passed by the respondent No.2-Collector and District Magistrate, Rajanna Sircilla District, whereby, the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertilizer Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders & White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (for short, "P.D. Act"), and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.2054, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 29.12.2020, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana,.
2. We have heard the submissions of Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Mallareddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
ARR, J & Dr. SAJ 2 W.P.No.1470 of 2021
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned detention order is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The detenu was elected as Councilor in the year 2014. Out of the two crimes viz., Crime Nos.103 and 488 of 2020 of Vemulawada Town Police Station relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu, in Crime No.103 of 2020, statutory bail was granted to the detenu and in Crime No.488 of 2020, notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was served on the detenu. Without there being any cogent material on record, the detaining authority reached to the conclusion that the free movement of the detenu in the society will disturb the public order and the even tempo of public life. The impugned detention order is passed on surmises and conjectures. By no stretch of imagination, the acts alleged against the detenu in the grounds of detention could affect public tranquility. The detaining authority should not be influenced by extraneous considerations while reaching at subjective satisfaction to detain the detenu. Further, the cases alleged against the detenu 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, as grave as they may be, are under the 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 preventive detention laws. Hence, the impugned detention order tantamounts to colourable exercise of power. The detaining authority has to be extremely careful while passing the detention order, since the detention ipso facto adversely affects the ARR, J & Dr. SAJ 3 W.P.No.1470 of 2021 fundamental right of personal liberty enjoyed by the people under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the detention order is legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to set aside the same and allow the Writ Petition as prayed for.
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents would contend that the detenu is a 'goonda'. He had indulged in dangerous criminal activities such as brutal murders, thereby creating large scale fear and panic among the general public and adversely affecting the maintenance of public order. He was involved in as many as seven cases such as murder, outraging modesty of women, criminal intimidation and causing other bodily offences, which took place publicly in Vemulawada Town of Rajanna Sircilla District. By committing such offences, the detenu has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, apart from disturbing the peace, tranquility and social harmony in society. The series of crimes allegedly committed by the detenu were sufficient to affect the even tempo of the society and create a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people at large. The offences committed in the cases relied upon by the detaining authority for detaining the detenu are gruesome in nature. With a view to prevent the detenu from further indulging in such dangerous activities in the interest of the society, the impugned detention order was passed. An order of preventive detention may be made in anticipation, with or without prosecution or after discharge or even after acquittal of a person/s in the cases alleged. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under P.D. Act. One is punitive action and the other one is preventive action. The basis for passing the detention order is ARR, J & Dr. SAJ 4 W.P.No.1470 of 2021 that the authority passing the detention order has to arrive at subjective satisfaction for preventively detaining the detenu. In the instant case, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority cannot be said to be tainted. The impugned detention order is not passed on surmises and conjectures, as contended. All the mandatory provisions and the safeguards envisaged under the Constitution of India were strictly followed while passing the impugned detention order and hence, the impugned detention order does not suffer from illegality or impropriety. Further, in the two crimes relied upon by the detaining authority for detaining the detenu, in Crime No.103 of 2020, the first three bail petitions moved by the detenu were dismissed and in the fourth bail petition, the detenu was granted statutory bail and in the other crime, notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was served on him. As there is every likelihood of the detenu committing similar offences, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the impugned detention order was passed. Further, the Advisory Board, in its review meeting, upon hearing the detenu and the concerned investigating officials and upon considering the entire material placed before it, rendered its opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. On considering the opinion of the Advisory Board and upon considering the entire material, the Government confirmed the impugned detention order, vide G.O.Rt.No.2054, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated 29.12.2020. Therefore, the detaining authority was legally justified in passing the impugned detention order and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
ARR, J & Dr. SAJ 5 W.P.No.1470 of 2021
5. In view of the submissions made by both sides, the point that arises for determination in this Writ Petition is:
"Whether the impugned detention order, dated 20.10.2020, passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential confirmation order, dated 29.12.2020, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, are liable to be set aside?"
6. POINT: Briefly, the facts of the case are that by relying on two criminal cases registered against the detenu in Crime Nos.103/2020 and 488/2020 within the limits of Vemulawada Town, the respondent No.2-Collector and District Magistrate, Rajanna Sircilla District, passed the impugned detention order, dated 20.10.2020. According to the respondent No.2, the detenu is a 'goonda' as he had indulged in criminal activities such as brutal murders, thereby creating large scale fear and panic among the general public and acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order apart from disturbing peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society. Out of the two crimes relied upon by the detaining authority, the detenu got statutory bail in one crime from the Court concerned and in the other crime, notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was served on the detenu. As there is every likelihood of the detenu indulging in similar illegal activities which are detrimental to the public order, the impugned detention order, dated 20.10.2020, was passed, which was confirmed by the Government of Telangana by order, dated 29.12.2020.
ARR, J & Dr. SAJ 6 W.P.No.1470 of 2021
7. The material placed on record reveals that the detenu- Mudrakola Venkatesham, S/o. Rajaiah, who is a 'goonda', had indulged in criminal activities such as brutal murders. His illegal activities are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and created panic among the general public. Though the detenu involved in as many as seven cases, the detaining authority relied upon only two cases for preventively detaining the detenu. We shall present them in a tabular form the date of occurrence, the date of registration of FIR, the offences complained of and their nature, such as bailable/non-bailable or cognizable/non-cognizable.
Date of
Date of
Crime No. Occurrence registration Offences Nature
of FIR
103/2020 of Sections 302 and
Cognizable/
Vemulawada Town 26.02.2020 26.02.2020 120B read with 34 Non Bailable
Police Station IPC
Section 452 IPC
-Cognizable/
Non Bailable
488/2020 of
Sections 452, 506
Vemulawada Town 12.09.2020 12.09.2020
and 504 IPC Sections 506 and
Police Station 504 IPC -Non-
Cognizable/
Bailable
8. As seen from the material placed on record, in Crime No.103/2020, it is alleged that on 26.02.2020 at 09:00 hours, the detenu and his associates and son waylaid the deceased Nuguri Shiva at Hari Hara Function Hall Chowrastha and while the associates and son of the detenu caught hold the deceased, the detenu attacked on the deceased Nuguri Shiva with knife and inflicted injuries over the cheek and other parts of the deceased and the deceased succumbed to the said injuries on the same day. In Crime No.488/2020, it is alleged that on 12.09.2020 at about 11:00 hours, while the complainant therein i.e., mother of the deceased Nuguri Shiva in Crime No.103 of 2020, was in her house, the detenu entered into her ARR, J & Dr. SAJ 7 W.P.No.1470 of 2021 house armed with a knife, abused her in filthy language and threatened her that he has killed her son Shiva and that he would also kill her family and eye witnesses. He had also threatened the elder son of the complainant. In Crime No.103 of 2020, statutory bail was granted to the detenu and in the other crime, notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was served on the detenu. Under these circumstances, the contention of the respondents that there is imminent possibility of the detenu committing similar offences which would be detrimental to public order unless he is prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of detention, cannot be brushed aside. Further, a perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the detenu alleged to have been involved in as many as seven criminal cases and in one case among them, the detenu was charged with the offence under Section 302 IPC besides other offence, which is said to have taken place in broad day light in Vemulawada Town. It creates extreme fright in the minds of general public and adversely affects the maintenance of public order. The detenu involved in as many as seven crimes such as murder, outraging the modesty of women, criminal intimidation, causing other bodily offences and also threatening the witnesses with dire consequences, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority cannot be said to be tainted or illegal.
9. It is apt to state that preventive detention is different from punitive detention. While punitive detention could be enforced under ordinary criminal law, the law of preventive detention can be enforced against habitual offenders to prevent them from committing future similar offences, which are detrimental to the public interest, ARR, J & Dr. SAJ 8 W.P.No.1470 of 2021 disturbing the even tempo of life and causing damage to peace and tranquility in the society. The legal parameters for testing the validity of 'preventive detention' fundamentally vary from that of 'punitive detention'. Also, 'Public order' is distinct from 'law and order'. While individual offences without affecting public at large could be considered as violating 'law and order', the offences that affect larger public and disturbs the even tempo of public life fall under the category of disturbance to public order and only in the latter category of cases, the law of preventive detention shall be enforced.
10. In the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate1. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"The acts which disturb public tranquility or are breaches of the peace should not be given a narrow meaning, but should be given a liberal interpretation. For the expression 'in the interest of public order' is very wide amplitude."
11. In the case of Commissioner of Police & Others Vs. C.Anita (Smt.)2, the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the issue of "public order"
and "law and order" and observed as follows:
"The crucial issue is whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the expression "law and order" is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order, "public order" has a narrower ambit, and public order could be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of "law and order"
and "public order" is one of the degree and extent of the 1 (1970) 3 SCC 746 2 (2004) 7 SCC 467 ARR, J & Dr. SAJ 9 W.P.No.1470 of 2021 reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of the public, it could raise problem of law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting "public order" from that concerning "law and order". The question to ask is: "Does it lead to disturbance of the current 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?" This question has to be faced in every case on its facts."
12. As per the clause (g) of Section 2 of the P.D.Act, a "goonda" means a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860).
13. It is pertinent to state that the personal liberty of an individual, which the law preserves and protects, can also be taken away by following the procedure established by law, when it is used to jeopardize the public good and not merely private interests. An order or detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, the avowed object of which is to prevent the anti- social and subversive elements from imperiling the welfare of the people or the security of the nation or from disturbing the public tranquility. In the instant case, the commission of alleged offences as indicated in the above table clearly demonstrates that the detenu committed grave and dangerous offences including murder, criminal ARR, J & Dr. SAJ 10 W.P.No.1470 of 2021 conspiracy, House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation, which would certainly disturb the public peace and tranquility. As mentioned above, the detenu made persistent efforts to get bail in Crime No.103 of 2020 and he was granted bail by the Court concerned. So, it is imperative upon the officers concerned to pass the order of detention, since the acts of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The illegal activities of the detenu were of such a reach and extent, that they will certainly affect the even tempo of life and are prejudicial to the public order. The detaining authority had sufficient material to record subjective satisfaction that the detention of the detenu was necessary to maintain public order and even tempo of life of the community. The order of detention does not suffer from any illegality. The grounds of detention, as indicated in the impugned order, are found to be relevant and in tune with the provisions of the P.D. Act. Though the detenu was granted bail in Crime No.103 of 2020, after release on bail, he threatened the witnesses in the said crime, which resulted in registering Crime No.488 of 2020 relied on by the detaining authority. Hence, there is nothing wrong on the part of the detaining authority in raising an apprehension that there is imminent possibility of the detenu committing similar offences, which would again certainly affect the public order. The commission of alleged offences by the detenu makes it amply clear that there is every possibility of detenu committing similar offences in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not tainted or illegal on any account. The acts of the detenu cannot be effectively dealt with under ordinary criminal law. Under these circumstances, ARR, J & Dr. SAJ 11 W.P.No.1470 of 2021 the detaining authority is justified in passing the impugned detention order. Therefore, the impugned orders are legally sustainable. We do not see any merit in this Writ Petition and as such, it is liable to be dismissed.
14. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J ____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 14th June, 2021 MD