Shaik Nazneen v. The State of Telangana

- 3 -

WP No.35519 of 2021 force on them since the year 2020 in the Andhra Pradesh State and in the limits of the Rachakonda Commissionerate of Telangana State. He was involved in as many as 36 gold chain snatching offences. Earlier, the detenu, along with three others, formed as a gang and was committing chain snatching offences to make quick money. They came to Hyderabad in a car bearing No.AP 39 TU 5033 and took shelter in the lodges. As per the modus operandi of the crimes, they conduct reccee in the colonies and after selecting suitable colonies, commit theft of two wheeler motor cycles and after committing robbery/chain snatching from the neck of the women while travelling on motorcycle, travel some distance on motorcycle, abandon the two wheeler and flee away in the car along with other associates and share the sale proceeds among themselves.

4. The detention order would disclose that though the detenu was

involved in 32 cases, only 4 cases of chain snatching were considered as ground cases for the detention order as the other cases were reported to be behind the proximity period and out of the jurisdiction of the commissionerate. The four ground cases, basing on which the detention order was passed was passed, are:

(1) Crime No.355 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 392, 411 read with 34 IPC of Medipally Police Station.

(2) Crime No.358 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 392, 411 read with 34 IPC of Medipally Police station.

(3) Crime No.532 of 2021 for the offence under Section 392 read with 34 IPC of Medipally Police station.

- 4 -

WP No.35519 of 2021 (4) Crime No.533 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 392, 411 read with 34 IPC of Medipally Police station.

5. The above offences were committed within a span of two months between 06.05.2021 and 26.07.2021 within the limits of same police station i.e. Medipalli police station. In all the cases, the detenu moved bail petitions before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar. The court below granted bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. and on producing sureties, the detenu was released on 16.10.2021. The detention order was passed on 28.10.2021.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the four crimes referred to above were alleged to be committed in the limits of same police station and in very close proximity in date and time. This itself would show the truth or otherwise of the complaints. The said crimes were registered only to invoke the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act against the detenu. The preventive detention law could not be invoked mechanically in each and every case as a matter of routine. Every crime registered under the specified chapters of penal code could not form the basis for arriving at a subjective satisfaction against the individuals touching their liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The ordinary law of the land was already set into motion to deal with the activities of the detenu. The satisfaction of the detaining authority to invoke Section 3 (2) of the Act was unfounded and unconstitutional. Mere arraying as an accused should not be a ground to invoke

- 5 -

WP No.35519 of 2021 the PD Act. So far, no charge sheet was filed and final verdict was pronounced. Therefore, he should be treated as an innocent till the guilt is proved. The 2^nd respondent failed to take into consideration that the detenu was released on regular bail in all the cases and the said orders were not challenged before the appellate court and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu¹, Goman India v. Customs Commissioner,

Mumbai² and of this Court in Suguna v. State of Telangana³ and Adal Singh

v. State of Telangana⁴.

7. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and contended that while passing the detention order under Section 3 (2) of the Act 1 of 1986, all the mandatory provisions and the constitutional safeguards contemplated under Article 22 of the Constitution of India had been strictly followed. The respondents having considered the entire material and the antecedent criminal history of the detenu and having satisfied that the cases registered under ordinary criminal law had no deterrent effect in curbing his habitual nature of committing similar offences and having felt that the detenu was not amenable to ordinary law, passed the detention order. In the review meeting held by the Advisory Board, the detenu was produced through video conference and after hearing the detenu and the

1 (2011) 5 SCC 244

2 C.A. 5166 OF 2003 dated 6.7.2011

3 WP No.24441 of 2019 dated 23.10.2020

4 WP No.12444 of 2021

- 6 -

WP No.35519 of 2021 concerned police officials, the Advisory Board submitted its opinion to the Government within the mandatory period of seven weeks. The Government upon considering the entire material, approved the detention order within the mandatory period of 12 days as required under Section 3(3) of the Act vide G.O.Rt.No.2453, dated 06.11.2021. The Detaining authority also considered the entire material including the bail petitions and having considered the fact that the detenu was already released on bail, passed the impugned detention order in the public interest. The respondents were justified in designating the detenu as 'goonda' as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986 and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Sukhpal Singh⁵, Hardhan Saha & another v. The State of West Bengal & Others⁶

and Subrahmanian v. State of Tamil Nadu⁷.

8. In view of the submissions made by both the parties, the point that arises for determination in this petition is whether the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent against the husband of the petitioner vide proceedings No.133/PD-CELL/CCRB/RCKD/2021, dated 28.10.2021 and the consequential confirmation orders passed by the 1^st respondent in G.O.Rt.No. 94, dated 12.01.2022, are justified or liable to be set aside?

5 (1991) 1 SCC 35

7 2012 (4) SCC 699

- 7 -

WP No.35519 of 2021 9. On a perusal of the detention order, it would disclose that the detenu had committed as many as 32 cases of chain snatching in the limits of various police stations of Guntur, Nellore, Chittoor and in other Districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh and during the year 2021 in quick succession, he committed four chain snatching offences, snatching the gold ornaments from the neck of women in the limits of Rachakonda Police Commissionerate in Telangana State. The Detaining authority, after satisfying himself that the activities of the detenu were creating panic among the public and were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the cases registered against the detenu under the ordinary law were having no deterrent effect on his activities, passed the detention order.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukhpal Singh's case (5 supra)

observed that:

"Preventive order 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 so doing. The justification of such detention is suspicious or reasonable probability and not criminal conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence. Thus, any preventive measures even if they involve some restraint or hardship upon individuals, do not partake in any way of the nature of punishment, but are taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the state. When power is given to an authority to act on certain facts and if that authority acts on relevant facts and arrives at a decision which cannot be described as either irrational or unreasonable, then the order is not bad and the Court cannot substitute its decision or opinion in place of the decision of the authority concerned on the necessity of passing the order."

- 8 -

WP No.35519 of 2021 11. In Hardhan Saha's case (6 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

"The power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It does not over lap with prosecution even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched. An order of preventive detention, may be made before or during prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. An order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution."

12. In Suguna's case (3 supra) this Court while distinguishing law and order and public order held that:

"The offences which are committed against a particular individual fall within the ambit of "law and order". It is only when the public at large is adversely affected by the criminal activities of a person, the conduct of a person is said to disturb

"the public order".

13. In Rekha's case (1 supra) in which the criminal cases were registered against the detenu under the provisions of IPC and as well as under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

"..the ordinary law of land was sufficient to deal with the situation and hence, recourse to the preventive detaining law was illegal. Whenever an order under the preventive detention is challenged one of the questions the court must ask in deciding its legality is: was the ordinary law of the land was sufficient to deal with the situation? If the answer is in the affirmative, the detention order will be illegal."

- 9 -

WP No.35519 of 2021 14. A perusal of the detention order would disclose that the detaining authority after considering that the detenu, along with his associates, was targeting lonely women as victims and was snatching gold ornaments from their necks while they were proceeding on the public road and conducting the offences in an organized manner and such acts had the potential of creating a sense of fear and insecurity among women and hinder their day to day work, considered the same as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He also considered the linking evidence of the recovery of the gold ornaments from the possession of the detenu and that the witnesses correctly identified the detenu in the Test Identification parade proceedings and the CCTV footage collected by the police had clearly shown the movements of the detenu and his boarding into Ertiga Car bearing No.AP 39 TU 5033 and also considering that though bails were granted to the detenu, no conditions were imposed in the said bail orders, as such, ordinary law and order was not sufficient to deal with the situation, had taken recourse to the preventative detention.

15. In the above factual background, it is apt to note the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subrahmanian's case (7 supra), wherein it was held that:

- 10 -

WP No.35519 of 2021

and relevant, that sufficiency of grounds is not for the Court but for the detaining authority for the formation of subjective satisfaction that the detention of a person with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public order is required and that such satisfaction is subjective and not objective. The object of the law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive and further that the action of the executive in detaining a person being only precautionary, normally the matter has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the executive authority. It is not practical to lay down objective rules to conduct in an exhaustive manner. The satisfaction of the detaining authority, therefore, is considered to be of primary importance with certain latitude in its discretion".

16. It is seen that all the mandatory procedure under Act 1 of 1986 and the safeguards contemplated under Article 22 of the Constitution of India are strictly followed by the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. We are of the opinion that there are no merits in this writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

17. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed confirming the detention order vide proceedings No.134/PD-CELL/CCRB/RCKD/2021, dated 28.10.2021, passed by the 2^nd respondent and the consequential confirmation orders vide G.O.Rt.No.112, dated 13.01.2022, passed by the 1^st respondent. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________

P. NAVEEN RAO, J

_____________________

Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J March , 2022

KTL