Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court took up a challenge questioning the exercise of preventive policing powers after allegations surfaced that local authorities had insisted on repeated appearances of certain individuals for being bound over to maintain peace and good behaviour under the preventive provisions of law.
The case arose from proceedings initiated by the police in connection with a crime registered for an offence under Section 307, read with Section 34 of the IPC. Following this, the authorities opened a rowdy sheet and allegedly directed the individuals concerned to continuously report before the local police station for the purpose of surveillance and binding-over proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with “Security for Keeping the Peace and for Good Behaviour.”
It was contended that the initiation of such proceedings was unwarranted, as the individuals had only one pending case against them, and the alleged offence did not fall within the category of acts disturbing public peace or public tranquillity. The petitioners argued that the insistence on repeated appearances amounted to an arbitrary curtailment of fundamental rights and was bereft of statutory justification. The State, while responding, acknowledged that, except for the said FIR, no other criminal cases were pending.
While examining the record, the Court referred to established judicial principles governing the opening of rowdy sheets, particularly the requirement that such steps must not be taken in a casual or mechanical manner. The Court recalled that police authorities must undertake due care and periodic scrutiny before branding any individual as a habitual offender, and that only offences bearing a nexus with disruption of public peace or tranquillity could justify such surveillance measures. The Court noted that the continuation of the rowdy sheet must be tested against these parameters and that preventive powers cannot be invoked merely on the basis of a solitary allegation unless the conduct satisfies the threshold prescribed in law.
In its final determination, the Court held that the circumstances of the present case did not meet the legal standards required for sustaining the impugned preventive action and therefore directed that the rowdy-sheet proceedings be set aside.
Case Title: Nagireddi Satish Kumar and Ors. V. State Of Andhra Pradesh and Ors
Case No.: Writ Petition No: 1892/2022
Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. P B Narasimha Murty
Counsel for the Respondent: P For Home
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
