Preventive detention: Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser 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, 1986 – s. 3(2) – Preventive detention under – On facts, detenu accused of cheating many people to the tune of more than Rs. 50.00 lakhs in the guise of providing good profit through investment in share market – Five FIRs filed against detenu, being u/s. 420, 406 and 506 IPC – Detention order passed nine months after the filing of the last FIR – Writ petition challenging order of preventive detention – Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects ‘law and order’ but to affect ‘public order’, it must affect the community or the public at large – Allegation in the FIRs pertain to the realm of ‘law and order’ wherein various acts of cheating are ascribed to the detenu punishable under IPC – Possible apprehension of breach of law and order can be said to be made out – This may be a ground to appeal against the bail orders granted and/or to cancel bail but not for a recourse to preventive detention statute – Thus, the detention order is quashed and the impugned judgment is set aside.
s. 2(a) explanation – Public order – Explained. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On the facts of the instant case, it is clear that at the highest, a possible apprehension of breach of law and order ORS.
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 the springboard to move under a preventive detention statute. Therefore, the detention order is quashed on this ground. The impugned judgment is set aside and the Detenu is ordered to be freed forthwith. [Para 24][1005-D-F]
1.2 While it cannot seriously be disputed that the Detenu may be a “white collar offender” as defined under Section 2(x) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, yet a Preventive Detention Order can only be passed if his activities adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order. Public order is defined in the Explanation to Section 2(a) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act to be a harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave widespread danger to life or public health. As is well-known, the expressions ‘law and order’, ‘public order’, and ‘security of state’ are different from one another. [Para 11, 12][988-G-H; 989-A-B]
1.3 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. 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 Indian Penal Code 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 instant case. [Para 13, 14][991G-H; 992-A-C]
1.4 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. [Para 17][994-C-E]
Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970) 3 SCC 746 – held inapplicable.
Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 4 SCC 699 : [2012] 1 SCR 985 – distinguished.
Commissioner of Police v. C. Sunita (2004) 7 SCC 467 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 701 ; R. Kalavathi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 6 SCC 14 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 74; Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar [1966] 1 SCR 709; Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra [1980]
2 SCR 1095; Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar (1984) 3 SCC 14 : [1984] 3 SCR 435; Union of India v. Yumnam Anand (2007) 10 SCC 190 : [2007] 5 SCR 60; Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244 : [2011] 4 SCR 740; Haradhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal (1975) 3 SCC 198 : [1975] 1 SCR 778; Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur (2012) 2 SCC
176 : [2012] 1 SCR 1; Mungala Yadamma v. State of A.P. (2012) 2 SCC 386 : [2012] 1 SCR 26 – referred to.
ORS.
Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana (2018) 12 SCC 150 : [2017] 4 SCR 52; Collector & District Magistrate v. Sangala Kondamma (2005) 3 SCC 666 – cited.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.