Telangana High Court
Munavath Ramji vs The State Of Telangana on 17 October, 2023
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
WRIT PETITION No.26851 OF 2023
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mrs. B. Mohana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Godugu Mallesham, learned Assistant 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 the respondents to produce Mr. Munavath Naresh S/o Munavath Ramji, now detained in Central Prison, Cherlapally, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, and to order his release forthwith by setting aside the detention order 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 detenu 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 2 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. No.26851 of 2023 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 order was 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.
Robbed an amount of Rs.7,550/-
107/23 of Madgul P.S. Sec.392 IPC Chain snatching. Conditional bail was granted.
Gold jewellery
weighing 11.7 tolas
was seized
Auto-rickshaw No.TS
12UA 7860, Splendor
Plus Bike No.Ts 05
FK 9086 were seized
5. Mrs. B. Mohana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned detention order was issued without application of mind. The detaining authority did not consider the 3 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. No.26851 of 2023 entire material properly including the nature of allegations leveled against the detenu etc. Therefore, there is no subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority while issuing the impugned detention order.
Thus, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the allegations levelled against the detenu are serious and in nature and he 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 its police station limits. Thus, he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order', thereby disturbing peace and tranquility in the society. Therefore, he is 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 the subjective satisfaction only, passed the detention order in order to prevent the detenu from committing similar offences. There is no error in it.
4
KL,J & SKS,J W.P. No.26851 of 2023
7. Perusal of detention order, dated 12.09.2023, passed by respondent No.2 and the record would reveal that the detaining authority passed the impugned detention order relying upon the aforesaid two (02) crimes. He has also referred two more crimes though not relied upon viz., i) Crime Nos.23 and 49 of 2023, both registered by Chinthapally Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections - 356 and 379 IPC.
8. The allegations levelled against the detenu 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 5 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. No.26851 of 2023 robbed cash of Rs.7,550/- from her Tiffin carrier box and fled away from the place. While the investigation was pending, when the detenu was arrested in Crime No.107 of 2023, he confessed to have committed the aforesaid offence and other offences. He also confessed that they spent entire booty for their lavish expenses. Thus, basing on his confession in Crime No.107 of 2023, he was implicated in Crime No.39 of 2023. He is accused No.4 in Crime No.39 of 2023. It is relevant to note that in her statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C., the victim mentioned three (03) persons have participated in commission of offence.
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 unknown person was already waiting and both of them 6 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. No.26851 of 2023 escaped on the bike. The detenu is arraigned as accused No.4. In pursuance of the confession made by the detenu and his associates, 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 detenu 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.
9. According to the detaining authority, the detenu has been habitually engaging himself in unlawful acts and indulging in committing of Robberies, Property Theft Offences and Gold Chain Snatchings including sacred Mangalasutras from women fold by using criminal force on public roads in broad day light continuously, repeatedly not only within the police station of his jurisdiction, but also other Police Station of Nalgonda District. The said acts of the detenu have been creating large scale of fear and panic among the 7 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. No.26851 of 2023 general public, especially women folk. According to him, the detenu committed the aforesaid two (02) crimes in quick succession during the year 2023 apart from his past history in other two (02) crimes came to a conclusion that the detenu is a '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 detenu involve breach of peace and public tranquility and that his 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 order dated 12.09.2023.
10. As stated above, basing on the confession statement of the detenu in Crime No.107 of 2023, he was implicated in crime No.39 of 2023 and also in Crime Nos.23 and 49 of 2023, both are pending on the file of Chinthapally Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections - 356 and 379 IPC.
11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced copy of FIR in Crime No.23 of 2023 of Chinthapally Police Station. Perusal of the same would reveal that the complainant therein had lodged a complaint with Police Chinthapally on 05.02.2023 stating that the accused therein gagged her mouth with a cloth and snatched 8 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. No.26851 of 2023 away her gold chain weighing about one tola worth Rs.35,000/- and fled away from the scene. In the charge sheet also, it is specifically mentioned about the confession made by the detenu in Crime No.107 of 2023. The detenu is accused No.2 in Crime No.39 of 2023. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader has not produced copy of FIR or remand report or charge sheet in Crime No.49 of 2023.
12. As stated above, the detenu is accused No.4 in both the Crime Nos.39 and 107 of 2023 of Madgul Police Station. Nothing was seized from his possession in any of the crimes. The Court below granted bail to the detenu in both the crimes. But, the Investigating Officers did not file any application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the detenu on the ground that he is committing similar offences. Perusal of the bail orders would also reveal that the Investigating Officers have not apprised learned Public Prosecutors by furnishing material to oppose bail applications filed by the detenu stating that he is a habitual offender, committing similar offences which are creating panic in the minds of general public.
13. As discussed above, criminal law was already set on motion. The aforesaid crimes were registered against the detenu. The 9 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. No.26851 of 2023 detaining authority has passed the detention order against accused Nos.1 and 4 only. No detention order was passed against accused Nos.2 and 3. According to him, there are serious allegations against accused No.2.
14. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the detaining authority did not consider the entire material on record and did not come to a subjective satisfaction that the acts committed by the detenu disturbed the public order. Thus, the detaining authority failed to draw a distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'.
15. 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.
16. In Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar2, 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 1 . (1982) 2 SCC 403 2 . (1966) 1 SCR 709 10 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. No.26851 of 2023 "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 11 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. No.26851 of 2023 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."
17. It is not in dispute that the detaining authority shall pass detention order in rarest of rare cases, that too, to prevent the detenu in committing similar offences on consideration of entire material on record and on coming to a subjective satisfaction. The detaining authority cannot pass detention order mechanically.
18. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned detention order is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside.
19. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the detention order dated 12.09.2023 passed by respondent No.2 vide Proceedings No.41/PD-CELL/RCKD/2023 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Mr. Munavath Naresh S/o Munavath 12 KL,J & SKS,J W.P. No.26851 of 2023 Ramji, free, if he is no longer required in any other criminal case. In the circumstances of the case, 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 _________________ K. SUJANA, J 17th October, 2023 Mgr