Telangana High Court
Smt. Nenvath Bujji M/O. Detenu Nenavath ... vs The State Of Telangana on 16 November, 2023
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
WRIT PETITION Nos.26941 AND 26886 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr. M.A. Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. Both the writ petitions are filed to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release the detenus i.e., Nenavath Ravi S/o Nenavath Jagan and Munavath Ramesh S/o Chandu, who are now detained in Central Prison, Cherlapally, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, and to order their release forthwith by setting aside the detention orders, both dated 12.09.2023 passed by respondent No.2 declaring it as illegal.
3. Respondent No.2 passed the detention order dated 12.09.2023 against the detenus under the provisions of Section - 3 (2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land- 2
KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023 Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1 of 1986 (Amendment Act No.13 of 2018) (for short 'Act No.1 of 1986'), terming him as a 'Goonda' as defined under Section - 2 (g) of the Act No.1 of 1986.
4. The impugned detention orders were passed by respondent No.2 - detaining authority relying on the following two (02) crimes:
Crime No. Offences Allegations levelled Remarks 39/23 of Madgul P.S. Sec.394 IPC Voluntarily causing Conditional bail was hurt in committing granted.
robbery.
(C.C.No.514 of 2023 is Robbed an amount of pending).
Rs.7,550/-
107/23 of Madgul P.S. Sec.392 r/w Chain snatching. Conditional bail was Sec.34 IPC granted. Gold jewellery Charge sheet was filed weighing 11.7 tolas and C.C. Number is was seized awaiting. Auto-rickshaw No.TS 12UA 7860, Splendor Plus Bike No.Ts 05 FK 9086 were seized
5. Mr. M.A. Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned detention orders were issued without 3 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023 application of mind. The detaining authority did not consider the entire material properly including the nature of allegations levelled against the detenus etc. The offences alleged to have committed by the detenus do not disturb 'public order' and at best would be a law and order problem. The detaining authority did not consider all the said aspects and there is no subjective satisfaction arrived at by him while issuing the impugned detention orders. Thus, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the allegations levelled against the detenus are serious and grave in nature and they had engaged in unlawful activities of chain snatchings in public places during day time, creating panic and scare among the public in an organized way not only under the limits of respondent No.2 Police Commisionerate, but also outside its jurisdiction. Thus, they are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order', thereby disturbing peace and tranquility in the society.
Therefore, they are termed as a 'Goonda' as defined in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act No.1 of 1986. The detaining authority, considering the entire material available on record and after arriving at 4 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023 the subjective satisfaction only, passed the detention order in order to prevent the detenus from committing similar offences. There is no error in it.
7. Perusal of detention orders, both dated 12.09.2023, passed by respondent No.2 and the record would reveal that the detaining authority passed the impugned detention order against the detenu in W.P. No.26886 of 2023 relying on the aforesaid two (02) crimes i.e., Crime Nos.39 and 107 of 2023 of Madgul Police Station. He has also referred to five more crimes though not relied on, but however, referred to them showing the past criminal history of the detenu, which are Crime Nos.129, 23, 49 and 106 of 2023, registered by Chinthapally Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
- 356 and 379 IPC and Crime No.102 of 2023 registered by Kanagal Police Station of Nalgonda District for the very same offences.
8. Whereas, the detaining authority also passed the detention order, dated 12.09.2023 against the detenu in W.P. No.26941 of 2023 relying on the aforesaid two (02) crimes i.e., Crime Nos.39 and 107 of 2023 of Madgul Police Station. He has also referred to two more crimes though not relied on, but however, referred to them showing the past criminal history of the detenu, which are Crime Nos.129 and 5 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023 106 of 2023 registered by Chinthapally Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections - 356 and 379 IPC.
9. The allegations levelled against the detenus in both the crimes on which the detaining authority relied upon while passing the detention order are as under:
i) In Crime No.39 of 2023 of Madgul Police Station, on 20.03.2023 at about 1800 hours, while the complainant/victim, Mrs. Kuntala Laxmamma, was on her way laid from her work place in Sri Mahalaxmi Rice Mill at Kolkulapally Gate, en-route near Jaanam Well, three unknown persons aged about 25-30 years followed her from her backside and started pretending as searching for toddy and suddenly they pounced on her, pasted a plaster on her mouth and tried to remove her silver cups from her legs, but they could not succeed. However, they robbed cash of Rs.7,550/- from her Tiffin carrier box and fled away from the place. While the investigation was pending, when the detenus were arrested in Crime No.107 of 2023, they confessed to have committed the aforesaid offence and other offences. They also 6 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023 confessed that they spent entire booty for their lavish expenses. Thus, basing on their confession in Crime No.107 of 2023, they were implicated in Crime No.39 of 2023. Both the detenus herein are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 1 respectively. It is relevant to note that in the statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C., the victim mentioned three (03) persons have participated in commission of offence. Further, the Investigating Officer on completion of investigation laid the charge sheet and the same is numbered as C.C. No.514 of 2023 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amangal. The detenus herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2.
ii) In Crime No.107 of 2023 of Madgul Police Station, on 01.08.2023 at 1430 hours, when the complainant - Smt. Nutanaganti Pullamma W/o late Rama Lingaiah was sitting in front of her house, one unknown person aged about 20-30 years came to her on foot and all of a sudden he robbed her two rows gold Nuptial Chain weighing about 3 tolas and fled away on the bike on which another 7 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023 unknown person was already waiting and both of them escaped on the bike. The detenus are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 1 respectively. In pursuance of the confessions made by the detenus and their associate, the police seized one Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.TS 12UA 7860, one Splendor Plus motorbike bearing registration No.TS 05FK 9086 from possession of accused No.1 at the instance of the detenus and so also gold jewellery in all the cases totaling 11.7 tolas. The said seized vehicles were used for transportation in commission of the aforesaid offences. It is relevant to note that in her statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C., the victim mentioned two (02) persons have participated in commission of offence.
10. According to the detaining authority, the detenus have been habitually engaging themselves in unlawful acts and indulging in committing of Robberies, Property Theft Offences and Gold Chain Snatchings including sacred Mangalasutras from women folk by using criminal force on public roads in broad day light continuously, repeatedly not only within the police station of his jurisdiction, but 8 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023 also other Police Station of Nalgonda District. The said acts of the detenus have been creating large scale of fear and panic among the general public, especially women folk. According to him, the detenus committed the aforesaid two (02) crimes in quick succession during the year 2023 apart from their past history in other two (02) and five (05) crimes respectively came to a conclusion that the detenus are 'Goonda' as defined in Clause (g) of Section - 2 of the Act No.1 of 1986. Therefore, he has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the illegal acts of the detenus involve breach of peace and public tranquility and that their continuous presence in the area is detrimental to the maintenance of 'public order' apart from disturbing the peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society and accordingly passed the detention orders dated 12.09.2023.
11. The detention order would reveal that the detenu in W.P.No.26941 of 2023 was also involved in two (02) more offences apart from the subject crimes viz., Crime Nos.106 and 129 of 2023 of Chinthapally Police Station. The offences registered against him are under Sections - 356 and 379 of IPC. However, the detaining authority did not rely on the said crimes and only referred to them to show the past history of the detenu in commission of offences. 9
KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023
12. Similarly, the detenu in W.P.No.26886 of 2023 was also involved in five (05) more crimes viz., Crime Nos.23, 49, 106 and 129 of 2023 of Chinthapally Police Station and also Crime No.102 of 2023 of Kangal Police Station in Nalgonda District registered for the aforesaid offence. The detaining authority though not relied upon the said crimes, however, referred to the same to show the past history of the detenu in commission of offences.
13. The allegations levelled against both the detenus are serious and grave in nature. They have been habitually engaging themselves in unlawful acts and indulging in committing of robberies, property theft offences and gold chain snatchings including sacred mangalasutras from women folk by using criminal force on public roads in broad day light continuously, repeatedly, and thereby creating large scale fear and panic among the general public, especially women. Their intention was to earn easy money to lead lavish lives. The said illegal acts of the detenus are detrimental to the maintenance of public order apart from disturbing the peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society. Thus, the modus operandi adapted by the detenus and their associates are that they planned to earn easy money 10 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023 by committing robberies and extortion. Further, pursuant to the confession made by the detenu in W.P.No.26941 of 2023 in Crime No.107 of 2023, the police seized stolen booty i.e., Honda Shine Motorcycle bearing No.TS 05EZ 6413 pertaining to Crime No.129 of 2023 of Chinthapally Police Station from the house of his relative. The Investigating Officer also seized i) one Auto-rickshaw bearing No.TS 12UA 7860; ii) Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing No.TS 05FK 9086 which were used in commission of offences from the possession of his associates at his instance. In addition, gold jewellery in all cases totaling 11.7 tolas was also seized from the possession of detenu in W.P. No.26886 of 2023 at the instance of the detenu in W.P. No.26941 of 2023.
14. The detaining authority considering that the detenus involved in series of property offences; pendency of petitions filed seeking cancellation of bails and the detenus may commit similar offences in his limits in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order' arrived at a conclusion that their acts prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order' and accordingly passed the detention orders against the detenus. Thus, the said acts committed by the detenus would certainly disturb the public order. 11
KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023
15. The acts committed by the detenu come under the category of 'goonda'. The object of the Act No.1 of 1986 is to provide for preventive detention of Bootleggers, Dacoits etc. including 'Goonda'. Section - 2 (g) of the Act No.1 of 1986 defines "Goonda", which 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 IPC.
16. While passing the detention order, the detaining authority not only considered the commission of offences committed by the detenus and their associates, but also considered its impact disturbing 'public order' and also the modus operandi adapted by them in commission of offences. Therefore, in order to prevent the detenus from committing similar offences, the impugned detention order was passed.
17. It is not in dispute that the detaining authority shall consider the nature of offence and the manner in which it was committed. He has to consider the entire material on record and come to a subjective satisfaction while issuing detention order. The detaining authority has to draw a distinction between 'law and order' 12 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023 and 'public order' and disturbance to the public order due to the acts committed by detenu. In the present case, the detaining authority on consideration of entire material arrived at the subjective satisfaction with regard to causing disturbance to 'public order' on account of the acts committed by the detenu. However, this Court, vide order dated 17.10.2023 in W.P. No.26851 of 2023, set aside the detention order dated 12.09.2023 passed by respondent No.2 against the associate of the detenus i.e., Mr. Munavath Naresh considering that he was implicated in the second case basing on his confession in the first case. Even in both the cases, the alleged acts said to have been committed by him do not disturb the public order. Whereas, in the present cases, there are serious and grave allegations against the detenus herein and so also modus opernadi adapted by them. The acts committed by them certainly disturbed the 'public order'.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration 1 observed that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing.
1 . (1982) 2 SCC 403 13 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023
19. In Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar 2, the Apex Court held as under:
"...Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of disorder or only some? 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 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 2 . AIR 1966 SC 740 14 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023 under Rule 30(1)(b) to prevent subversion of public order but not in aid of maintenance of law and order under ordinary circumstances. It will thus appear that just as "public order" in the rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was said to comprehend disorders of less gravity than those affecting "security of State", "law and order" also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting public order". One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State."
20. The detaining authority while invoking powers under Section - 3 (2) of the Act No.1 of 1986, has to consider the entire material on record and come to a subjective satisfaction that the acts committed by the detenu, nature of offence and the manner in which the same was committed would disturb the public order. To prevent the detenu from committing similar offences, the detaining authority shall issue preventive detention order against the detenu. This Court 15 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023 has to consider facts and circumstances of each case on case to case basis.
21. As discussed above, the detenus have committed the aforesaid two (02) offences of robbery and chain snatchings and creating panic and scare among the public, especially in women folk. Thus, they have engaged in unlawful activities by committing the said bodily and property offences, which are serious and grave in nature, and thereby acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order' as it disturbs peace and tranquility in the society. Further, the police also seized motorbikes used in commission of the offences.
22. In view of the same, it is clear that the said acts committed by the detenus would certainly create large scale panic in general public, more particularly women folk. All the said aspects were considered by the detaining authority while passing detention order. The aspects of modus operandi and the acts committed by the detenus and their associates in commission of offences and filing of petitions by the police seeking cancellation of bail granted to the detenus were also considered by the detaining authority while passing detention orders. Therefore, viewed from any angle, we are of the considered 16 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. Nos.26941 & 26886 of 2023 view that there is no error in the impugned detention orders dated 12.09.2023 passed by respondent No.2 and the consequential approval orders passed by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.Nos.1305 and 1306, dated 20.09.2023 respectively. Thus, the writ petitions fail and the same are liable to be dismissed.
23. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petitions shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J _________________ K. SUJANA, J 16th November, 2023 Mgr