Deepak Vyas vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 29 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

              WRIT PETITION No.14276 OF 2020

                       Date:06.01.2021

Between:
Deepak Vyas, S/o. Ramesh Chandra
Vyas, aged 24 years, Occ: Private
Employee, R/o.15-7-201, Gandhi Galli,
Begum Bazar, Hyderabad                   .. Petitioner


       And


The State of Telangana, rep., by its
Principal Secretary, Home Department
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others        .. Respondents




The Court made the following:
                                      2



        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

                WRIT PETITION No.14276 OF 2020
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the

respondents in opening and maintaining rowdy sheet against the

petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Crime No.218 of 2018 was registered in Shahinayathgunj

Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections

307, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 I.P.C. After conducting investigation

into the crime, police filed charge sheet in the Court of

XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Thereafter, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and

the matter is at the P.R.C. stage.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Station House Officer and

Inspector of Police, Shahinayathgunj Police Station, it is stated

that on the ground that petitioner is involved in Crime No.218 of

2018, respondent - police opened rowdy sheet and continued the

same. Later, they have registered a suo motu complaint in Crime

No.259 of 2018 and the Executive Magistrate passed orders for

binding over for good conduct. The period of one year is over long

ago. Further continuation of rowdy sheet is not renewed even

though petitioner is involved in one crime only and no involvement

of the petitioner in any other crime is noticed by the police.

5. Right to life and liberty are sacrosanct to a person. A person

is entitled to lead his life with dignity and self-respect. He is

entitled to privacy. His rights flow out of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. Surveillance on person certainly infringes

on his right to life, privacy and liberty. These rights cannot be

infringed except by due process of law. Compelling public interest

may require intrusion into privacy of a person, but while doing so

great care and caution has to be observed. Thus, if police open a

rowdy sheet to keep surveillance on a person, it must show

justification, impelled to ensure peace and order in the society.

6. The scope and width of Article 21 of the Constitution

of India, scope of power of police to infringe privacy of a person and

scope and ambit of Police Standing Orders (for short, 'PSO') were

vividly analyzed and dealt with extensively by two learned Judges

of this Court in Mohammed Quadeer and others

v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and another1 and

Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Home

Department and others2. In both these decisions, it is held that

PSOs., are non- statutory executive instructions and have no

binding force of law.

7. In Mohammed Quadeer and others (1 supra), it is held:

33. Therefore, I have no hesitation whatsoever to reject the plea that mere surveillance and watch by the Police itself would not infringe the fundamental rights of a citizen. Such surveillance and watch which is not authorised by law may be unconstitutional. Such surveillance and watch even if it is authorised by law but if it is not in accordance with that law would equally be unconstitutional."

(emphasis supplied)

1999 (3) ALD 60

1999 (6) ALT 249

8. In paragraph No.49 of Sunkara Satyanarayana (2 supra),

learned single Judge culled out principles on police surveillance

against history/rowdy sheeters. To the extent relevant, they read

as under:

"49. Therefore, in the context of police surveillance against history sheeters and rowdy sheeters, the following principles vis-a-vis right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution would emerge:

.......

(iii) If police surveillance is in accordance with executive/departmental guidelines and not authorised by statute or rules having statutory force, it is for the State to prove that surveillance does not in anyway infringe the fundamental right of the person and that the authorities have followed the guidelines scrupulously in ordering surveillance,

........

(vi) In either case-whether police regulations are statutory or where they have no statutory force-there should be sufficient material to induce the opinion that the history sheeters/rowdy sheeters show a determination to lead a life of crime which involves public peace or security only. Mere convictions in criminal cases where nothing imperils the safety of the society cannot be regarded as warrange surveillance under the relevant regulations, however broadly and in whatever language the regulation might have been couched,

........

(viii) The above principles that emerge from various binding precedents are only general principles. As seen from various decided cases of this Court, opening of history sheet or rowdy sheet can be justified only when it is proved before the Court by the State that based on the relevant material the competent police officer has applied mind with due care and considered all aspects in the light of the law and then ordered opening of history sheet or rowdy sheet or ordered continuation or retention of the history sheet. In the beginning of this Judgment, all the relevant decisions of this Court have been referred to and those principles may also have to be kept in mind."

(emphasis supplied)

9. The Andhra Pradesh Police Manual deals with various

aspects of functioning of police personnel, which include

registration of crimes, investigation, conducting of trial and

opening of rowdy sheets etc. PSO-6013 deals with opening of

3 "Order 601. The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 80) may be opened for them under the orders of theSP/DCP and ACP/SDPO.

rowdy sheet. According to Clause-A4 thereof, if a person habitually

commits, attempts to commit or abet the commission of offences

involving breach of peace, disturbance to public order and security,

a rowdy sheet can be opened to closely observe his movements and

activities. According to Clause-B5 thereof, the persons, who are

bound over, should be classified as rowdies and rowdy sheets can

be opened and continued.

10. Reading of extracted provision of PSO-601-A makes it clear

that to open and continue rowdy sheet emphasis is on habitually

committing offence involving breach of peace, disturbance to public

order and security. Merely, making orders binding over for good

conduct cannot per se result in opening rowdy sheet unless police

have other inputs suspecting the possibility of involvement

in further crimes. It cannot be a matter of routine process.

Mere involvement in two offences cannot qualify petitioner as

habitual offender.

11. Having regard to the facts noticed above, the decision of the

respondent - police to continue the rowdy sheet is ex facie illegal.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent - police

are directed to forthwith close the rowdy sheet against the

petitioner. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date:06.01.2021 KH

'Clause-A. Persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of, offences involving a breach of the peace, disturbance to public order and security."

'Clause-B. Persons bound over under Sections 106, 107, 108(1)(i) and 110(e) (g) of Cr.P.C.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.14276 OF 2020

Date:06.01.2021

KH