Telangana High Court
Akhtar Begum vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 17 February, 2022
Bench: P Naveen Rao, G.Radha Rani
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
&
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
WRIT PETITION NOS. 32490 AND 32525 OF 2021
Date: 17.02.2022
W.P.No.32490 of 2021:
Between:
Aktar Begum w/o. Md.Javeed Ali,
Aged 40 years, r/o.H.No.16-9-403/6,
Near Abu Bakar Masjid,
Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.
.... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana, rep.by its
Prl.Secretary to Government
(Poll.), GAD, Telangana State,
Hyderabad and others.
.... Respondents
This Court made the following:
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
&
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
WRIT PETITION NOS.32490 AND 32525 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao)
Heard learned counsel for petitioner Smt B.Mohana Reddy
and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for learned
Additional Advocate General for respondents.
2. In these two writ petitions, petitioner is sister of two
detenues viz., Mohmood Bin Alvi and Ayub Bin Alvi, who are
detained by two independent proceedings dated 24.9.2021.
3. The orders of detention were passed against these two
detenues on the allegations that they are involved in two recent
crimes, Crime No.243 of 2021 registered on 17.7.2021 under
Sections 302, 201, 120 (B), 147, 148 read with 149 IPC of
Chaderghat Police Station and Crime No. 294 of 2021 registered on
18.7.2021 under Section 394 IPC in Afzulgunj Police station. The
Detaining Authority also refers to previous involvement of the
detenues in several crimes. In the case of Mahmood Bin Alvi, it is
alleged that he was involved in 13 offences between 2002 to 2018
and that he was externed from the limits of Hyderabad Police
Commissionerate in the year 2015 and there is no remorse and he
continue to indulge in crimes. With reference to Ayub Bin Alvi, it
is alleged that he was involved in six crimes between 2005 to 2017
and there is no remorse in his conduct and he continues to indulge
in heinous crimes.
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
3
4. It is further asserted that these two detenues applied to
grant bail on 13.8.2021 and 16.9.2021; as prosecution vehemently
opposed granting of bail, both bail applications were rejected.
However, the Detaining Authority anticipated that since no charge
sheets were filed within the statutory time, there was every
possibility of statutory bail being granted to them, the order of
detention was passed to prevent the detenues being set free. As
anticipated, on 20.10.2021 statutory bail was granted to both
detenues. The Government approved detention order by order
dated 1.10.2021 and on review, the Advisory Board confirmed the
decision of the Detaining Authority to detain the detenues in its
review meeting held on 27.10.2021. Based on the report of the
Advisory Body, the Government confirmed the order of detention
by order dated 25.11.2021 in case of Mahmood Bin Alvi and by
order dated 18.11.2021 in case of Ayub Bin Alvi. It is asserted
that having regard to the previous history of involvement in several
crimes and involvement in heinous crimes of committing murder
for gain and to have over all control in the locality to commit
crimes, it is no more desirable to allow these detenues to go scot-
free and allow them to indulge in committing further crimes which
actions would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order,
therefore, detention is necessary.
5. Extensive submissions are made by learned counsel for
detenues and learned Government Pleader for Home. Both counsel
placed extensive reliance on decisions of this Court and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
4
6. It is the assertion of learned counsel for detenues that the
crimes registered against the detenues do not attract public order.
What is alleged in Crime No. 243 of 2021 was a result of animosity
between the deceased and detenue and this solitary instance
cannot be the basis to resort to preventive detention. She would
submit that even according to the prosecution, it is a case of
murder to settle scores against the deceased as they bore grudge
against him in trying to prevent their activities. The other crime
reported against the detenues is an offence of theft of two wheeler
motor vehicles. She would therefore submit that these two crimes
are routine law and order problems and do not attract disturbance
to public order requiring preventive detention.
7. Per contra, according to learned Government Pleader for
Home, antecedent activities of the person can be looked into to
assess the mind set of a person who frequently indulges in crimes,
though, ultimately he may have been acquitted. The criminal bent
of mind and motive to create panic and insecurity in the mind of
people at large is evident in the manner in which victim was killed
to eliminate rival person in the community and to gain control over
the area so that they can indulge in illegal activities affecting
ordinary people. He would therefore submit that on noticing the
involvement in two recent crimes, the Detaining Authority has
looked into the previous conduct to assess the bent of mind and
having assessed that it is no more desirable to let them free, rightly
concluded that the detenues be detained.
8. While considering a challenge to the order of detention, what
is required to be seen by the Court is whether due procedure was
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
5
followed and whether there was application of mind to consider all
aspects requiring detention. Once a decision is arrived by
observing the due formalities and on due assessment of the
involvement of the detenues, the Court cannot interfere with the
decision to detain the detenues.
9. Learned Government Pleader contended that as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haradhan Shah vs. State of West
Bengal1, preventive detention is a precautionary measure to
ensure that detenue do not repeat crimes causing hardship to
public at large, that Article 14 of the Constitution of India is
inapplicable and that merely detenues were granted bail is no
ground to hold the detention as illegal. He would submit that
even a solitary instance can be a good ground to detain as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Vs.
Union of India2. He would further submit that detaining authority
can take note of antecedents of the person to assess his criminal
behaviour and possibility of he indulging in crimes in future as
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harpreet Kour (Mrs) vs.
State of Maharashtra3. On review of precedent decisions, in
W.P.No.102 of 2021 this Court upheld the detention on a solitary
crime and in anticipation of securing bail.
10. Two competing aspects throw up whenever an issue of
preventive detention comes up. On the one side is the right of the
individual citizen to protect his life, liberty and privacy, which are
sacrosanct. On the other extreme is the sacred duty of the
Government to enforce law and order, peace and tranquility in the
1
(1975) 3 SCC 198
2
(1992) 1 SCC 1
3
(1992) 2 SCC 177
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
6
society. Whenever a crime is reported, the law enforcing agency
sets in motion criminal justice system on the offences enumerated
in the Indian Penal Code and various special enactments dealing
with specific crimes. In the process of investigation into the crime,
the accused can be arrested, detained and can be interrogated.
11. Section 2(a)4 of the Act, 1986 defines what is meant by
"acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order". It means a person against whom several crimes are
reported and is known as 'a bootlegger', 'a dacoit', 'a goonda' , 'an
immoral trafficker' and 'a land grabber' and is engaged or is
making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as such,
which affected adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the
maintenance of public order. Explanation appended to this clause
explains that "public order" is deemed to have been affected
adversely/likely to be affected adversely, if any of the activities of a
person referred to in the clause, directly or indirectly, is causing or
calculated to cause any harm, danger, or alarm or a feeling of
insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a
grave or widespread danger to life or public health. Other clauses
of Section 2 of the Act, 1986 defines various terms mentioned in
Clause (a), including the term 'land grabber' [clause (j)5].
4
(a) "acting" in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" means when a boot-
legger, a dacoit, a drug-offender, a goonda, an immoral traffic offender or a land-grabber is engaged
or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as such, which affect adversely, or are
likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order :
Explanation. - For the purpose of this clause public order shall be deemed to have been affected
adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia, if any of the activities of any of
the persons referred to in this clause directly, or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any
harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a
grave wide-spread danger to life or public health :
5
(j) "land-grabber" means a person, who illegally takes possession of any land (whether belonging to
Government, local authority or any other person) or enters into or creates illegal tenancies or lease
and licence, agreements or any other agreement in respect of such lands; or who constructs
unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease
and licence basis or for construction or use and occupation of un-authorised structures or he
knowingly gives financial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of such lands, or for
construction of unauthorised structures thereon or who collects or attempts to collect from any
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
7
12. Ordinarily, no person can be arrested/detained unless crime
is reported. Act 1 of 1986 makes an exception to this salutary
principle. It vests extraordinary power in the Government or in its
delegatee to detain a person even before a crime is committed by
him. Perforce, this power of detention is not to be exercised as a
matter of course. As it seeks to offend the most sacred of the
rights, right to life, liberty and privacy, there are three primary
requirements need to be answered by the law enforcing agency
before invoking the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1986.
Firstly, he must be a known offender and several crimes are
reported against him and can be classified as 'a boot-legger', 'a
dacoit', 'a goonda', 'an immoral traffic offender' or 'a land-grabber';
secondly, the person must be acting in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of the public order; and thirdly, there must be
subjective satisfaction by the authority that there is possibility of
the person indulging in such activities in future also which is likely
to cause disturbance to 'public order'.
13. Resort to preventively detain a person is made when the
detaining authority assumes that allowing a known offender at
large may adversely affect or likely to adversely affect the
maintenance of public order. Preventive detention of a person is an
extreme measure impinging a citizen's right to life and liberty. Law
enforcing agency can resort to such extreme measure only when
the conduct of offender affects or is likely to affect maintenance of
public order and ordinary law enforcing mechanism is not
sufficient to prevent such person from indulging in illegal activities.
occupier of such lands, rent, compensation or other charges by criminal intimidation or who evicts
or attempts to evict any such occupier by force without resorting to the lawful procedure ; or who
abets in any manner die doing of any of the above-mentioned things;
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
8
It being an extreme measure, the law enabling such power has to
be strictly construed.
14. There is no quarrel with the propositions that even when an
offender is involved in one crime an offender can be detained and
that preventive detention is a precautionary measure to prevent
committing further crimes affecting the community at large. At the
same time, it is a measure that affects right to life and liberty,
which is sacrosanct and requires to be preserved at any cost.
Therefore, the detaining authority has to apply his mind, weigh all
options and can resort to such measure only in extraordinary
circumstances where law and ordinary machinery may not cope up
and there is an imminent threat to public order.
15. The decision must be a well considered decision impelled by
protection of 'public order'. Even then, it is an extreme measure to
be resorted in extraordinary circumstances, as a last resort and in
larger public interest. It being an exception, cannot subsume the
character of routine police action. It should be resorted to only
when the normal course of criminal justice system has failed to
discipline the individual and actions and conduct of a person has
caused or is likely to cause disturbance to 'public order'. The
power to detain is an exceptional power to be used under
exceptional circumstances. (Sudhir Kumar Saha vs. the
Commissioner of Police, Calcutta6)
16. The Court has to assess that in given facts whether extreme
measure of preventive detention is warranted making regular
criminal law procedure a nugatory. It is the sacred duty of the writ
6
(1970) 1 SCC 149
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
9
Court to keep eternal vigil to ensure right to life and liberty is not
affected by State resorting to illegal means. The Court is reminded
of the fact that resort to preventive detention is on the allegation of
involvement in alleged crime(s) as assessed by the detaining
authority, which is/are yet to be proved. Preventive detention is
largely precautionary and based on suspicion. (State of Madras Vs.
V.G. Row7). It is in the realm of speculation. The Court is required
to see whether procedural safeguards are strictly complied before
detaining a person. A mere disturbance tolaw and order leading to
disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the
Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public
order comes within the scope of the Act. (Pushker Mukherjee Vs
State of West Bengal8). Thus, what is paramount to note is whether
the offence(s) complained of against detenu is/are of a nature
which can be dealt with under the ordinary law of the land. If the
answer is yes, the detention order is ex facie illegal.
17. It is apt to note the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in I.R. Coelho Vs State of Tamil Nadu9. They read as
under:
"49. Granville Austin has been extensively quoted and relied on in
Minerva Mills [(1980) 3 SCC 625] . Chandrachud, C.J. observed that to
destroy the guarantees given by Part III in order to purportedly achieve
the goals of Part IV is plainly to subvert the Constitution by destroying
its basic structure. Fundamental rights occupy a unique place in the
lives of civilised societies and have been described in judgments as
"transcendental", "inalienable" and "primordial". They constitute the ark
of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati [(1973) 4 SCC 225] at SCC pp.
991, 999). The learned Chief Justice held that Parts III and IV together
constitute the core of commitment to social revolution and they, together,
are the conscience of the Constitution. It is to be traced for a deep
understanding of the scheme of the Indian Constitution. The goals set
out in Part IV have, therefore, to be achieved without the abrogation of
the means provided for by Part III. It is in this sense that Parts III and IV
together constitute the core of our Constitution and combine to form its
conscience. "Anything that destroys the balance between the two parts
will ipso facto destroy an essential element of the basic structure of our
Constitution." (emphasis supplied) (Minerva Mills [(1980) 3 SCC 625] ,
7
AIR 1952 SC 196
8
(1969 1 SCC 10
9
(2007) 2 SCC 1
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
10
SCC p. 654, para 57.) Further observes the learned Chief Justice, that
the matters have to be decided not by metaphysical subtlety, nor as a
matter of semantics, but by a broad and liberal approach. We must not
miss the wood for the trees. A total deprivation of fundamental rights,
even in a limited area, can amount to abrogation of a fundamental right
just as partial deprivation in every area can. The observations made in
the context of Article 31-C have equal and full force for deciding the
questions in these matters. Again the observations made in para 70 (SCC
p. 659) are very relevant for our purposes. It has been observed that
(Minerva Mills case [(1980) 3 SCC 625] , para 70, p. 659)
"[I]f by a constitutional amendment, the application of
Articles 14 and 19 is withdrawn from a defined field of
legislative activity, which is reasonably in public interest,
the basic framework of the Constitution may remain
unimpaired. But if the protection of those articles is
withdrawn in respect of an uncatalogued variety of laws,
fundamental freedoms will become a 'parchment in a
glass case' to be viewed as a matter of historical
curiosity."
These observations are very apt for deciding the extent and scope
of judicial review in cases wherein entire Part III, including Articles 14,
19, 20, 21 and 32, stand excluded without any yardstick.
.............
109. Dealing with Articles 14, 19 and 21 in Minerva Mills case [(1980) 3
SCC 625] it was said that these clearly form part of the basic structure of
the Constitution and cannot be abrogated. It was observed that three
articles of our Constitution, and only three, stand between the heaven of
freedom into which Tagore wanted his country to awake and the abyss of
unrestrained power. These articles stand on altogether different footing.
Can it be said, after the evolution of the basic structure doctrine, that
exclusion of these rights at Parliament's will without any standard,
cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny as a result of the bar created by
Article 31-B? The obvious answer has to be in the negative. If some of the
fundamental rights constitute a basic structure, it would not be open to
immunise those legislations from full judicial scrutiny either on the
ground that the fundamental rights are not part of the basic structure or
on the ground that Part III provisions are not available as a result of
immunity granted by Article 31-B. It cannot be held that essence of the
principle behind Article 14 is not part of the basic structure. In fact,
essence or principle of the right or nature of violation is more important
than the equality in the abstract or formal sense. The majority opinion in
Kesavananda Bharati case [(1973) 4 SCC 225] clearly is that the
principles behind fundamental rights are part of the basic structure of
the Constitution. It is necessary to always bear in mind that fundamental
rights have been considered to be heart and soul of the Constitution.
Rather these rights have been further defined and redefined through
various trials having regard to various experiences and some attempts to
invade and nullify these rights. The fundamental rights are deeply
interconnected. Each supports and strengthens the work of the others.
The Constitution is a living document, its interpretation may change as
the time and circumstances change to keep pace with it. This is the ratio
of the decision in Indira Gandhi case [1975 Supp SCC 1]."
18. In Rekha Vs State of Tamil Nadu10, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court guides the High Courts on how to deal with cases of
preventive detention. The Supreme Court held:
"30. Whenever an order under a preventive detention law is challenged
one of the questions the court must ask in deciding its legality is: was
the ordinary law of the land sufficient to deal with the situation? If the
answer is in the affirmative, the detention order will be illegal. In the
present case, the charge against the detenu was of selling expired drugs
after changing their labels. Surely the relevant provisions in the Penal
Code and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act were sufficient to deal with this
(2011) 5 SCC 244
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
situation. Hence, in our opinion, for this reason also the detention order
in question was illegal."
19. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this
Court considered what is meant by 'law and order', 'public order'
and 'security of State'. Leading case on the subject is Ram
Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar11. It was a case of detention
under the Defense of India Rules. Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:
"54. ...... Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of disorders
or only some of them? 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 if 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.
55. 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. By using the expression "maintenance of
law and order" the District Magistrate was widening his own field of action
and was adding a clause to the Defence of India Rules."
20. In Banka Sneha Sheela Vs. The State of Telangana12, the
detenu was detained on 28.09.2020 alleging that he was involved
in five crimes committed between October, 2017 to December,
2019 attracting Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC. It was alleged
that he was luring general public to invest money with an
assurance of 100% return within a short period.
(1966) 1 SCR 709
2021 SCC Online SC 530 (Crl.A.No.733 of 2021),
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
20.1. After taking note of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ram Manohar Lohia (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held,
"15. There can be no doubt that for 'public order' to be disturbed, there
must in turn be public disorder. Mere contravention of law such as
indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects 'law and
order' but before it can be said to affect 'public order', it must affect the
community or the public at large.
16. There can be no doubt that what is alleged in the five FIRs pertain to
the realm of 'law and order' in that various acts of cheating are ascribed to
the Detenu which are punishable under the three sections of the Penal
Code, 1860 set out in the five FIRs. A close reading of the Detention Order
would make it clear that the reason for the said Order is not any
apprehension of widespread public harm, danger or alarm but is only
because the Detenu was successful in obtaining anticipatory bail/bail from
the Courts in each of the five FIRs. If a person is granted anticipatory
bail/bail wrongly, there are well-known remedies in the ordinary law to take
care of the situation. The State can always appeal against the bail order
granted and/or apply for cancellation of bail. The mere successful obtaining
of anticipatory bail/bail orders being the real ground for detaining the
Detenu, there can be no doubt that the harm, danger or alarm or feeling of
security among the general public spoken of in Section 2(a) of the
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act is make believe and totally
absent in the facts of the present case."
20.2. Taking note of the judgment in Madhu Limaye vs. Sub-
Divisional Magistrate13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held,
" 20. To tear these observations out of context would be fraught with great
danger when it comes to the liberty of a citizen under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The reason for not adopting a narrow meaning of
'public order' in that case was because of the expression "in the interests of"
which occurs to Article 19(2) to 19(4) and which is pressed into service only
when a law is challenged as being unconstitutional for being violative of
Article 19 of the Constitution. When a person is preventively detained, it is
Article 21 and 22 that are attracted and not Article 19. Further, preventive
detention must fall within the four corners of Article 21 read with Article 22
and the statute in question. To therefore argue that a liberal meaning must
be given to the expression 'public order' in the context of a preventive
detention statute is wholly inapposite and incorrect. On the contrary,
considering that preventive detention is a necessary evil only to
prevent public disorder, the Court must ensure that the facts brought
before it directly and inevitably lead to a harm, danger or alarm or
feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof
at large." (emphasis supplied)
20.3. On reviewing the precedent decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court further held,
"34. ....... a possible apprehension of breach of law and order can be said
to be made out if it is apprehended that the detenu, if set free, will
continue to cheat gullible persons. This may be a good ground to appeal
against the bail orders granted and/or to cancel bail, but certainly cannot
provide springboard to move under a preventive detention statue. ......"
(1970) 3 SCC 746
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
21. In Vijay Narin Singh vs State of Bihar14, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held,
"32. ...It is well settled that the law of preventive detention is a hard law
and therefore it should be strictly construed. Care should be taken that the
liberty of a person is not jeopardized unless his case falls squarely within
the four corners of the relevant law. The law of preventive detention should
not be used merely to clip the wings of an accused who is involved in a
criminal prosecution. It is not intended for the purpose of keeping a
man under detention when under ordinary criminal law it may not be
possible to resist the issue of orders of bail, unless the material
available is such as would satisfy the requirements of the legal
provisions authorizing such detention. When a person is enlarged on
bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised
in scrutinizing the validity of an order of preventive detention which
is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the criminal
court."
(emphasis supplied)
22. The facts on record disclose that out of 13 crimes reported
against Mahmood Bin Alvi, he was acquitted in 10 cases, 2 cases
were compromised and one case is pending trial. In case of Ayub
Bin Alvi, he was acquitted in all the six crimes. Further in case of
Mahmood Bin Alvi, the crimes referred to were alleged to have been
committed between 2002-2018 and in case of Ayub Bin Alvi the
alleged crimes were reported between 2005-2017. All the previous
crimes against the detenues were closed except one crime against
Mahmood Bin Alvi. Per force, the crimes referred to in the orders
of detention were not proximate to the decision to detain the
detenues, therefore, leaving the previous crime history aside, only
two crimes were registered against the detenues on 17th and 18th
August, 2021, considered for their preventive detention.
23. On going through the record of these two cases, it is seen
that on the ground of involvement in two crimes, the detention
orders were made. First crime is on murder of a rival. It appears
crime was the result of an inter se dispute between the victim and
the detenues. Though, it is a heinous crime but by this solitary
(1984) 3 SCC 14
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
instance, it cannot be assumed that this would create fear, panic,
insecurity in the public and disturb peace leading to disturbance of
public order. The other crime is theft of a two wheeler motor
vehicle. These are normal law and order crimes, which require
investigation, filing of final report and to prosecute them before the
jurisdictional criminal Court. The law enforcing machinery can
deal with these crimes under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with the situation.
(Rekha) (supra).
24. It cannot be said that the crimes registered against the
detenues require preventive detention. Further, crimes in the past
are not proximate to the decision to detain the detenues and
except one crime against Mahmood Bin Alvi, which is pending trial,
all other crimes ended in acquittal. Further, if the prosecution
opines that setting the detenues free is not desirable in public
interest, nothing prevented them to file petitions to cancel the bail.
Further, if the prosecution was of the firm opinion that detenues
should not be set free they should have filed charge-sheet within
the time available to them. They cannot cover up their lapses in
conducting investigation and resort to draconian law merely
because they have power to detain. It clearly amounts to abuse
and misuse of power.
25. Preventive detention is extra-ordinary measure impelled by
desire to ensure public order. It is an exception to ordinary law
enforcement against an offender. Resort to this extraordinary
measure can be against offenders who are creating panic, fear and
apprehension of insecurity to people at large and when there is
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
serious threat to public order due to egregious conduct and the law
enforcement machinery is unable to control the detenue from
indulging in repeated crimes. It is not to be resorted when the
offenders can be handled in the regular course of policing. Guided
by long line of precedent decisions, the conclusion is irresistible
that the orders of detention are not sustainable. They are
accordingly set aside.
26. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders of detention vide
SB(I) No.266/PD-6/HYD/2021 dated 24.09.2021 and
SB(I) No.267/PD-6/HYD/2021 dated 24.09.2021
and the consequential confirmation orders of the first respondent
approving detention vide G.O.Rt No. 2593 General Administration
(SPL. (Law & Order) Department dated 25.11.2021 and
G.O.Rt No. 2550 General Administration (SPL. (Law & Order)
Department dated 18.11.2021 respectively are not sustainable and
the same are accordingly set aside.
27. Writ Petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed
to set the detenues, namely, 1) Mahmood Bin Alvi @ Mahamood
Jabri @ Bhinswala Mahmood S/o Alvi Bin Ismail, and 2) Ayub Bin
Alvi S/o Alvi Bin Ismail, respectively, detained in Central Prison,
Chanchalguda, Hyderabad at liberty forthwith, if they are no longer
required in any other criminal case. Pending miscellaneous
petitions if any shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
_____________________________
Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
Date:17.02.2022
PNR,J + Dr.GRR,J
WP Nos.32490 & 32525 of 2021
Tvk/kkm
Note : Issue copy today.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
&
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
WRIT PETITION NOS. 32490 AND 32525 OF 2021
Date:17.02.2022
Tvk/kkm
