Telangana High Court
V.L.N.Deekshitulu vs The State Of Telangana on 16 February, 2022
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: P Naveen Rao, G.Radha Rani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE
OF TELANGANA
********
WRIT PETITION No.33846 of 2021
Between:
V.L.N. Deekshitulu S.o.Late Kesava Charyulu,
Aged 61 years, R/o.Flat No.401, Sai Viswanatha
Arcade, Sreenivasapuram Mainroad, Ramanthapur,
Hyderabad.
.... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government,
GAD (Spl.Law&Order), Telangana Secretariat,
Hyderabad and others.
..... Respondents
The court made the following:
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J
2 WP No.33846 of 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
WRIT PETITION No.33846 OF 2021
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani) The paternal uncle of the detenu filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the detention of the detenu, by name, Sri Vedanthan Aditya Bharadwaj, S/o. V. Muralidhar, under the provisions of Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and 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 and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986).
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J 3 WP No.33846 of 2021
2. The order of detention of detenu was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate on 05.10.2021 terming the detenu as a 'sexual offender' and that he engaged himself in the acts of outraging the modesty of women by stalking, assaulting and attempting to rape, recording obscene videos and uploading them in porn-sites and that the same created large scale panic and insecurity among the women, teenage girls and the general public prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.2827, General Administration (SPL. (Law & Order) Department, dated 22.12.2021. The grounds of detention referred to two cases i.e. (1) Crime No.306 of 2021 under Sections 354 D, 506, 376 read with 511 IPC and Section 66 (E) & 67 (A) of I.T. Act of Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli and (2) Crime No.314 of 2021 under Section 354 D IPC and Section 67-A of I.T. Act of Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad. The detenu was arrested in Crime No.306 of 2021 on 04.06.2021. In Crime No.314 of 2021, the detenu was granted bail on 09.07.2021 with a condition to furnish two sureties for Rs.40,000/- and to execute a personal bond PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J 4 WP No.33846 of 2021 for a like sum and to appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Wednesday between 11.00 AM to 5.00 PM till filing of charge sheet. In Crime No.306 of 2021 he was granted bail on 15.07.2021 on the third application with conditions to furnish two sureties for Rs.20,000/- and to execute a personal bond for a like sum and to appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Sunday and Thursday between 9.00 AM to 10.00 AM till filing of charge sheet. He was released on bail in the above two cases on 16.07.2021.
3. The detaining authority considering the offence of outraging the modesty of women, the attempt to rape and recording the videos of two women in obscene manner and uploading them in social media and porn-sites, and considering the grant of bail to the detenu, recorded his satisfaction that free movement of the detenu was not safe in the interest of the society and that there was imminent possibility of him indulging in similar prejudicial activities which were detrimental to public order and his acts were perilous to the safety and security of women and children in Cyberabad at large, passed the detention order terming the detenu PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J 5 WP No.33846 of 2021 as a 'sexual offender'. An Advisory Board was constituted and reviewed the case of the detenu on 22.11.2021, gave its opinion on 23.11.2021, that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. Basing on the opinion of the Advisory Board, the 1st respondent confirmed the order of detention for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention on 09.10.2021 by issuing G.O.Rt.No.2827, General Administration (SPL. (Law & Order) Department, dated 22.12.2021.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the two offences were alleged to have taken place in the year 2019 and reported in the year 2021. The detaining authority got influenced by the stale 'law and order' crimes alleged to have been registered against the detenu which formed the basis for subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The detaining authority failed to take note of the fact that the detenu's fiancée, who was complainant in Crime No.314 of 2021 and the complainant in Crime No.306 of 2021 were close friends, the business rivalry PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J 6 WP No.33846 of 2021 among the fiancée of the detenu and the detenu led to the registration of two crimes. Both the crimes were registered within a span of three weeks as a pre-planned conspiracy to settle the scores in the business. The stale incident of a new year party on 31.12.2019 was used against the detenu in both the FIRs which led to his arrest. The first crime was registered against the detenu on 08.05.2021 and the detenu was compelled to enter into settlement and as he did not heed to their demands, the second crime was registered on 02.06.2021 and he was arrested immediately on 04.06.2021. The same would demonstrate that the detenu was falsely implicated in the said two crimes for settling their business dealings. The ordinary law of the land was already set into motion and the detenu was arrested immediately after registration of the second crime. The detaining authority failed to take note of the fact that the detenu was set at liberty by the competent court on stringent conditions that he should appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Sunday, Wednesday and Thursday till filing of the charge sheet. The detenu was complying with the said conditions. He did not involve himself in any crime after his release. Learned counsel further contended that the documents PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J 7 WP No.33846 of 2021 supplied to the detenu were illegible and the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation to the authorities under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and prayed to set aside the order of detention on these grounds.
6. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit.
7. The learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that the detenu engaged himself in acts of committing heinous offences of molestation, outraging the modesty of women by stalking, assaulting and making an attempt to rape and recorded videos of the woman in objectionable manner and also made obscene video of another woman and uploaded both the videos on porn-sites. Thus, his acts were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and disturbing the peace and tranquility in the society, the same necessitated the 2nd respondent to pass the order of detention against the detenu to prevent him from further indulging in such offences. The detention order was passed on valid grounds after arriving at subjective satisfaction and prayed to dismiss the petition.
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J 8 WP No.33846 of 2021
8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel of both parties with reference to the record. Preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty. A person is not to be deprived of this right except in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. The preventive detention is an exception to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has drastic consequences affecting the personal liberty which was the most cherished and prized possession of a person in a civilised society. The said power has to be exercised with the greatest care and caution and it is the duty of the courts to ensure that this power is not abused or misused. [Durgam Subramanyam v. Government of A.P. (2013 (4) ALT 243 (D.B)); Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 746)]. To prevent misuse of this potentially dangerous power, the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed. When it comes to the fundamental rights under the Constitution, the Court, irrespective of the enormity and gravity of allegations made against the detenu, must intervene. The gravity of the evil to the community, resulting from anti-social activities, cannot furnish sufficient reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with the procedure established by PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J 9 WP No.33846 of 2021 law, particularly, as normal penal laws would still be available for being invoked instead of keeping a person in detention without trial [Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh v. Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad (1996) 3 SCC 194; Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 148; Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. Distt. Magistrate (1974) 1 SCC 103]. The law relating to preventive detention has always been strictly interpreted so as to uphold the concept of individual freedom. The Courts have always acted to safeguard the purity of such right which is available to be interfered with only under the most stringent and rigorous conditions.
9. The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done, but to prevent him from doing it. Its basis is the satisfaction of the Executive of a reasonable probability of the detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts, and preventing him by detention from so doing. The preventive detention is largely precautionary and is based on suspicion. The nature of the proceeding is incapable of objective assessment. The matters to be considered by the detaining authority are whether the person concerned, having PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J 10 WP No.33846 of 2021 regard to his past conduct judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and other relevant material, is likely to act in a prejudicial manner as contemplated by the provisions of the law and, if so, whether it is necessary to detain him with a view to prevent him from so acting.
10. In the light of the above principles, when the two cases referred to in the detention order are observed, both the offences took place in the year 2019 and in both the said crimes the detenu was arrested and sent to judicial remand and he was granted bail by imposing certain conditions. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority appeared to be that the detenu was granted bails in both the cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant in Crime No.314 of 2021, the fiancée of the detenu, was also his business partner and they dropped the idea of continuing the business and also the idea of marrying each other, and that led to rivalry and several complications, and to settle the business scores, both the said crimes were registered against the detenu with animosity. The facts of these two crimes would show a close relationship between both the complainants and that the PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J 11 WP No.33846 of 2021 said cases were registered within a span of three weeks pertaining to an incident of a new year party on 31.12.2019 which led to the arrest of detenu. Ordinary law of the land was set into motion and the detenu was arrested in the said regard. There were no crimes registered against him after he was enlarged on bail nor there was any antecedent history.
11. The Preventive Detention law can be invoked only when the public good is jeopardized. It is the potentiality of act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If the contravention, in its effect, is confined, only to few individuals, directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of the public, it could raise problems 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. Every infraction of the law must necessarily affect order, but an act affecting "law and order" may not necessarily also affect the public order. Likewise an act may affect public order, but not necessarily PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J 12 WP No.33846 of 2021 the "Security of the State". The true test is not the kind, but the potentiality of the act in question. One act may affect only individuals while the other, though on similar kind, may have such an impact that it would disturb the even tempo of the life of the community. [Kishori Mohan Bera v. State of W.B. (1972) 3 SCC 845; Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of W.B. (1969 1 SCC 10 and Arun Ghosh v. State of W.B. (1970) 1 SCC 98].
12. As both these offences are only stray cases, they cannot be considered as organized crimes or have a tendency to affect the flow of public life. Hence, it is considered fit to allow the petition. As the order of detention is allowed on these grounds, it is considered not necessary to delve deep into the other ground of supplying illegible copies of documents, as not even argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner though raised in the grounds.
13. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate - 2nd respondent vide No.147/PD-CELL/CYB/2021 dated 05.10.2021 and the consequential confirmation order of the Principal PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J 13 WP No.33846 of 2021 Secretary, General Administration (SPL.(Law & Order) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 1st respondent approving the detention vide G.O.Rt.No.2827, General Administration (SPL.(Law & Order) Department dated 22.12.2021, are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenu, namely Vedanthan Aditya Bharadwaj S/o.V.Muralidhar, Aged about 25 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.503, Anandvalli Apartment, Brundavan Colony, Malkajgiri, Medchal District at liberty forthwith, if he is no longer required in any other criminal case. No costs.
Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J _____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J February 16, 2022 KTL