Telangana High Court
Koneti Mangamma vs The State Of Telangana on 6 July, 2023
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
WRIT PETITION No.8811 OF 2023
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr. Pasham Trivikram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondent No.3 to produce the detenu i.e., Koneti Gyaneshwar, now detained in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, before this Court and to set aside the impugned detention order dated 06.12.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and the consequential confirmation order passed by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.101, dated 18.01.2023 by declaring them as illegal.
3. Respondent No.2 passed the detention order dated 06.12.2022 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-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration 2 KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023 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 (Act No.1 of 1986) (for short 'Act No.1 of 1986'), under the category of 'Goonda' as defined under Section - 2 (g) of the Act.
4. The mother of the detenu filed the writ affidavit. The aforesaid detention order was passed by respondent No.2 relying on the following two (02) crimes:
Crime No. Offences Allegations levelled Remarks 174/2022 of Sections - The detenu and his associate Bail petition filed by LMD 302 & 380 took shelter in Ashramam at the detenu was Colony P.S. r/w 34 IPC Jogaiahpalli village, Thimmapur dismissed.
Mandal and killed Swamijee by (PRC No.57/22) strangulating and committed theft of Rs.30,000/- net cash.
669/2022 of Section - The detenu and his associate Though bail was S.R.Nagar 392 of IPC robbed away gold pushtela granted, the detenu P.S. thadu from the neck of the continues to be in complainant, Laxmi Padmaja. judicial custody as he has not furnished sureties.
(C.C. No.8320 of
2022 is pending)
5. In the detention order, there is reference with regard to the involvement of the detenu and his associate, Mr. Neelam Srinivas, in the following six (06) crimes in relation to property offences under different 3 KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023 Police Stations of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana during the years from 2019 to 2022.
Crime No. Name of Police Station Offences
47 of 2019 Nellikuduru PS of Sections - 363, 366 & 376 (2) (n) of
Mahabubabad District IPC and Section - 5 read with 6 of
POCSO Act
370 of 2021 Paloncha P.S., Section - 20 (b) read with 8 (c)
Bhadradri- Kothagudem NDPS Act
District
268 of 2022 Suryapet II-Town P.S. Section - 379 of IPC
644 of 2022 Penamaluru P.S., Section - 382 of IPC
Krishna District
671 of 2022 -do- -do-
688 of 2022 -do- -do-
Apart from the aforesaid six (06) cases, the detenu involved in the aforesaid two (02) crimes, which are grave and gruesome offences i.e., murder for gain and robbery. After having come to the subjective satisfaction only, the detaining authority passed the impugned detention order.
6. As per the contents of the order of detention and the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the grounds for passing the order of detention are that the detenu has been repeatedly indulging in the acts of 'goondaism' by committing property offences i.e., chain snatchings, robbery and murder for gain which created alarm and panic in the minds of general public and thereby disturbed the public order and tranquility in the area.4
KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023
7. Perusal of the record would reveal that the detenu committed the aforesaid two (02) crimes. Earlier, the detenu also involved in six (06) property offences under different police station limits in the aforementioned States. Therefore, to prevent the detenu from committing similar offences which would disturb the public order, respondent No.2 issued the impugned detention order dated 06.12.2022. The same was confirmed by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.101, dated 18.01.2023.
8. Mr. Pasham Trivikram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the aforesaid two (02) crimes were referred and relied on by the detaining authority for passing order of detention, the same can be dealt with by ordinary law by the competent Criminal Courts instead of passing impugned detention order. He would further submit that the offences alleged to have committed by the detenu come under the ambit of law and order and the same are against particular individual. Further, the crimes were registered against the detenu based on confessions. The detaining authority passed the order of detention on flimsy grounds without any basis in a mechanical manner. There is no material to substantiate and justify for treating the detenu as 5 KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023 'Goonda'. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned detention order and the consequential confirmation order.
i) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana1; Mallada K. Sri Ram v. The State of Telangana2 and Shaik Nazneen v. The State of Telangana3.
9. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the allegations levelled against the detenu are serious in nature, as he is a 'habitual offender' involved in many chain snatching cases and other serious offences in both the States, the details of which are mentioned in the counter affidavit. Crime No.174 of 2022 was registered by the Police, LMD Colony Police Station, Karimnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections - 302 and 380 read with 34 of IPC. The allegations levelled against the detenu and his associate are that they took shelter in Ashramam and killed the Swamijee by strangulating and committed theft of Rs.30,000/- net cash. Considering the seriousness of offences, the Court below rejected the bail petition filed by the detenu. The detaining authority, considering the entire material available on 1 . 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1657 2 . 2022 SCC OnLine SC 424 3 . 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 559 6 KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023 record and after arriving at the subjective satisfaction only passed the detention order in order to prevent the detenu from committing similar offences. The said detention order was confirmed by respondent No.1. There is no error in it.
i) Learned Special Government Pleader placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar v. Union of India4 and Smt. K. Aruna Kumari v. Government of Andhra Pradesh5.
10. As discussed above, though the detaining authority referred to about the involvement of the detenu in six (06) crimes during the years 2019 to 2022, he has relied upon the aforesaid two (02) crimes/cases mentioned in the above said table and issued the impugned detention order. All the said two crimes are relating to murder for gain and robbery within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2.
11. The offences registered against the detenu are punishable under Sections - 302, 380 and 392 of IPC. Earlier, he was involved in six (06) crimes. The allegations levelled against the detenu are asunder:
"Occurred on the early hours of 04-07-2022 between 0300 & 0400 hours at Hanuman Temple, 4 . (1988) 2 SCC 57 5 . (1988) 1 SCC 296 7 KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023 Jogaiahpalli, H/o Thimmapur (v) and Mandal and was reported on the same day at 0900 hours by the complainant Chelpuri Anjaneyulu s/o Peddanna Swamy, 33yrs, Kummari, r/o Jogaiahpalli H/o Thimmapur (v) and Mandal and eking livelihood by working as Medical Representative. The deceased/father of the complainant Chelpuri Peddanna Sway s/o Venkata Rathnam, aged 60 years got constructed Hanuman temple in the village and also built an Aashramam in the temple premises. He remained by serving the devotees who visits the temple and Ashramam to get relief from their problems by redressing them with some remedies. The devotees who satisfy, used to offer donations to Ashramam and deceased, due to which the deceased Chelpuri Peddanna Swamy gradually became as "Swamijee". The deceased Peddanna Swamy is staying in the Ashramam, whereas his family members staying in their house in the village.
While this was going so, about 10 days prior to the incident, the proposed detenue Koneti Gyaneshwar and his associate Neelam Srinivas approached the deceased and invited the deceased/Swamijee to his home at Aleru village of Nellikuduru Mandal. The deceased along with his driver Sathish visited Aleru to the house of Koneti Gyaneshwar and suggested some remedies by performing puja and returned to Ashramam. After that, the proposed detenue Koneti Gyaneshwar and 8 KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023 his associate Neelam Srinivas along with the mother of Koneti Gyaneshwar visited the Aashramam on 02- 07-2022 and met the deceased/Swamijee and stayed in the Ashramam Later Neelam Srinivas went to Aleru and dropped the mother of Gyaneshwar and returned back to Ashramam and took shelter on the guise of some work. As such the deceased/Swamijee allowed them and arranged shelter and food, but even after two days they did not leave Ashramam and the deceased asked them to leave. But the proposed detenue Koneti Gyaneshwar and his associate Neelam Srinivas did not leave the premises and took and amount of Rs.500/- from Swamijee by requesting him. Meantime they hatched a plan to commit theft of net cash and other valuables by killing Swamijee and waited for an opportunity.
On 03-07-2022 the deceased/Swamijee went to Rayapatnam along with his driver by informed the proposed detenue Neelam Srinivas and his associate to leave the Ashramam and returned on the same day in the evening hours, even then the proposed detenue Koneti Gyaneshwar and his associate Neelam Srinivas were in the Ashramam. Again the deceased/Swamijee asked about their presence since three days. The proposed detenue Koneti Gyaneshwar and his associate and they assured to leave the place in the early morning. During that night, the proposed detenue Koneti Gyaneshwar and his associate had dinner and slept in the Ashramam, whereas the 9 KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023 deceased/Swamijee was slept in his room adjacent to the temple in the Aashram.
On the early hours of 04-07-2022 at about 0330 hours the proposed detenue Koneti Gyaneshwar and his associate entered in to the room of the deceased/Swamijee and found the deceased was sleeping on the floor, when they entered into the room, the deceased/Swamijee woke up and tried to question them, but the proposed detenue Koneti Gyaneshwar and his associate did not give scope to raise alaram, Koneti Gyaneshwar put his hand around the neck of the deceased, while the Neelam Srinivas caught hold the legs of deceased and Gyaneshwar pressed the throat of the deceased by tightening his hand, due to which the deceased/Swamijee could not take his breath properly and resisted himself for some time but could not rescue from the clutches of proposed detenue Koneti Gyaneshwar and his associate and died due to suffocation. Later the proposed detenue Koneti Gyaneshwar and his associate ransacked the Ashramam and committed theft of Rs.30,000/- net cash from the shoulder bag of deceased and also committed theft of some 1/-, 2/- and 5/- Rupees currency notes, old coins and decamped with booty. In this case the proposed detenue Koneti Gyaneshwar and his associate Neelam Srinivas were produced on PT warrants on 11-10-2022.10
KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023 Due to this brutal and preplanned murder took place in n temple premises the complainant, his family members, devotees and inhabitants of the locality, were extremely frightened by the brutal nets of the proponed detenue and his associate, which adversely affected the public order and left large sections of people under the grip of fear and shock. The offence had also been telecasted in the electronic media and prominently published in print media, because of which the people of Karimnagar and surrounding areas were adversely affected in their daily life."
Thus, according to the respondents, the case of the detenu falls under the category of 'Goonda'.
12. Section - 2 (g) of the Act No.1 of Act, 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.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration6 observed that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done 6 . (1982) 2 SCC 403 11 KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023 something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing.
14. In Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar7, 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 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 7 . AIR 1966 SC 740 12 KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023 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."
15. In Mallada K. Sri Ram2 relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court considering the fact that only two (02) crimes were registered against the detenu and he was granted bail on imposition of certain conditions, and there was no disturbance to the public order, set aside the detention order. In the said case, the two (02) crimes were registered for the offences punishable under Sections - 408, 420, 506 and 120B of IPC. Whereas, in the present case, though the detaining authority relied upon two (02) crimes, the offences registered against the detenu are punishable under Sections - 302 and 380 of IPC which are serious in nature.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the acts of the detenu did not create disturbance in public order. The manner in which he has committed the offences and nature of offences would reveal that it certainly disturbs the public order. Therefore, the decision in Khaja Bilal Ahmed1 relied by the petitioner is inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
13
KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023
17. In Shaik Nazneen3, the offences registered against the detenu therein are punishable under Sections - 392 and 411 read with 34 of IPC and that the detaining authority did not justify that the act of the detenu therein would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Whereas, in the case on hand, the detaining authority has come to a subjective satisfaction holding that the act of the detenu is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, the facts of the case in the said decision and the facts of the present case are different.
18. In Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar8, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the expression 'habitually' and held that the expression 'habitually' would mean 'repeatedly' or 'persistently' implying a thread of continuity, stringing together similar repetitive acts, and a single act or omission would not characterize as an act of 'habitual'. The Apex Court was of the opinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person must have grown accustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it would be a force of habit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a criminal instinct, with a criminal disposition of mind, that makes him as dangerous to society in general. 8 . (1984) 3 SCC 14 14 KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023
19. Thus, the detaining authority while invoking the powers under the Act No.1 of 1986, has to consider the entire material on record and come to a subjective satisfaction that due to the acts committed by the detenu, nature of offences and the manner in which the same were committed would disturb the public order. To prevent the detenu from committing the similar offences, the detaining authority shall issue preventive detention order against the detenu.
20. There is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition that the detention order shall be issued in rarest of rare cases, that too, to prevent the detenu from committing similar offences. Article - 21 of the Constitution of India enshrined the detenu the fundamental right of personal liberty which is precious right enshrined to the citizens as per the Constitution of India. At the same time, duty cast upon the 'State' as defined under Article - 12 of the Constitution of India to maintain law and order as well as public order. When there is disturbance to the public order, it is the duty of the 'State' to invoke the procedure laid down under the Act No.1 of 1986, to prevent the detenu from committing similar offences.
21. In Vijay Kumar1 the detention order was passed when the detenu was in Jail. Considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that 15 KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023 though the detenu is in Jail, the impugned detention order can be passed relying on the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the nature of offences and manner in which it was committed.
22. In Smt. K. Aruna Kumari2, the Apex Court held that this Court cannot examine probative value of evidence available to the detaining authority.
23. As discussed above, the facts of the present case would reveal that the detenu is having criminal history and several cases are pending against him. In all the aforesaid cases, the allegations levelled against the detenu are serious in nature. Even in Crime No.174 of 2022 of LMD Colony Police Station, Karimangar, the detenu killed the Swamijee by strangulating and committed theft of Rs.30,000/- net cash.
24. The contention of learned Special Government Pleader that keeping in view the past history of the detenu about his involvement in six crimes of different Police Stations of two States and that there is every possibility of the detenu committing similar offences in future, the detaining authority passed the impugned order of detention to prevent the detenu from committing similar offence is sustainable.
25. As discussed above, in the present case, the allegation levelled against the detenu are very serious. Therefore, viewed from any angle, 16 KL,J & PSS,J W.P. No.8811 of 2023 according to this Court, there is no error in the impugned detention order dated 06.12.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and as confirmed by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt. Nos.101, dated 18.01.2023. Thus, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
26. The present writ petition is 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 petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J _________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J 6th July, 2023 Mgr