The order of detention was served on the appellant while he was in custody.
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant moved the Vacation Bench of this Court which adjourned the proceedings on 25 June 2019.
2 If any such companyfirmation revocation was Since numbersuch Confirmation or received in the case of Khaja Bilal Ahmed, Revocation order pertaining to the Detenu number723, was a companyy of the same Detenu Prisoner number723, Khaja Bilal served to him?
4 On 2 November 2018, the brother of the appellant filed a Writ Petition 6 challenging the order of detention on the ground that it had number been companyfirmed within twelve days as companytemplated under Section 3 3 of the Telangana Offenders Act 1986.
Among them 4 cases were in acquittal.
The appellant was in custody until 27 February 2019 when an interim order of release was passed, which companytinued to remain in force until the High Court dismissed the petition on 13 June 2019.
5 On an interlocutory application8 filed in the Writ Petition, the High Court by an order dated 27 February 2019 issued a direction for the release of the Cr.
M.P. 1645 of 2018 CrPC Writ petition number41187 of 2018 Writ petition number43814 of 2018 IA 1 of 2019 appellant from preventive detention on the companydition that he would companytinue to abide by the terms imposed by the 14th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate for the grant of bail on 26 October 2018 in Crime number178 of 2018.
Emphasis supplied 19 The order of companyfirmation found numbermention either during the proceedings before the High Court or in the first companynter affidavit which was filed before this Court on 18 July 2019.
On 2 November 2018, a companyy of the order of the State government companyfirming the order of detention was served on the appellant.
Preventive Detention to the date of release of the said detenu from this institution, viz.,
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 The Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana by its judgment dated 13 June 2019, dismissed a challenge to an order of detention dated 25 October 2018.
The application for bail was allowed by the 14th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate on 26 October 2018 on the ground that the investigating agency had failed to companyplete the investigation within the period allowed by the proviso to Section 167 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19735.
On 26 October 2018, when bail was granted by the 14th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate in Crime number178 of 2018, an order of detention dated 25 October 2018 is stated to have been served on the appellant at 745 pm while he was still in jail custody.
Emphasis supplied 17 In the present case, the detenu was in detention between 25 October 2018 until 27 February 2019.
2 The appellant was detained under the provisions of sub section 2 of Section 3 of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Signature Not Verified Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land Grabbers, Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.12.19 102216 IST Reason 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 19861.
18 The order of companyfirmation purported to have been passed by the State Government was annexed for the first time on 30 September 2019 to the additional companynter affidavit filed in the proceedings before this Court by the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda.
No charge sheet has been filed till date.
III The detention order dated 25 October 2018 categorically states that the appellant will be granted mandatory bail under Section 167 of the CrPC and therefore, has been passed only on the apprehension of bail being granted The detention order has been passed apprehending the grant of bail without following the criteria laid down by this Court in Kamarunnissa v Union of India16, in which it was held In case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed 1 if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody 2 if he has reason believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him a that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail, and b that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity and 3 if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing.
20 The detention order dated 25 October 2018 has to be set aside on the following grounds i reference to stale and irrelevant grounds in the detention order by the detaining authority and ii the manner in which the order of companyfirmation dated 28 December 2018 was presented before this Court, casts doubt on the existence of the order of companyfirmation in the first place.Occ Business, Charminar, Hyderabad is a Goonda and has been habitually and companytinuously engaging himself in unlawful acts and indulging in the acts of goondaism by acting as a leader member of criminal gang and companymitted gruesome and heinous offences like Murder Attempt to Murder Rioting Criminal trespass and Assault on Public Servants in the Police Station limits of Hyderabad City and Rachakonda Commissionerate and thereby caused harm, panic and terror among the innocent general public of the area and on account of his criminal activities, his presence in the locality is adversely affecting the public order and thus he has acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order apart from disturbing the peace, tranquility, social harmony in the society.
The said order companytains the following endorsement The Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Cheriapally, Medhal Malajgiri Dist.
The proceedings were listed on various dates and arguments were heard for final disposal.
Emphasis supplied The above statement was reiterated in another part of the same companynter affidavit in the following terms However, the cases registered against him during the period 2009 to 2016 are number at all companysidered for passing the detention order.
The order of detention was issued on 2 November 2018 by the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, Commissionerate and companytained the following recitals WHEREAS, information has been placed before me that the offender Khaja Bilal Ahmed, S o Khaja Hassan, age 41 yrs.
Later, the deceased Aqeel got married to A 1s divorced wife Smt Rafath Sultana.
One of the cases against the appellant under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code 18602 is stated to have been companypromised in a Lok Adalat in four cases, the appellant is stated to have been acquitted five cases are stated to have been Telangana Offenders Act 1986 IPC transferred to the Special Investigation Team3, Hyderabad City for further investigation and four cases are pending trial.
the records revealed that the since 2009 to 2016 as many as 15 cases were registered against the detenu, for engaging himself in unlawful and dangerous activities.
Hyderabad city 12 47/2011 447,353,427 and 506 of IPC Acquitted 13 14/2009 147,148,324,307,427, 506 r w 149 of IPC Acquitted Section 27 of Indian Arms Act CASE WHICH IS COMPROMISED S NO CASE NO UNDER SECTION CURRENT STATUS 14 272/2016 341 and 323 of IPC Compromised in Lok Adalat vide order dated 08.09.2017 7 During the companyrse of the proceedings before the High Court, a companynter affidavit was filed by the Commissioner of Police stating that 4.
The order of detention thereafter proceeds to state that in 2018, the appellant was implicated in Crime number178 of 2018 under Sections 364, 302, 120B and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC at PS Abdullapurmet of Rachakonda Commissionerate which is under investigation.
Though, cases were registered, arrested by Police and a Rowdy sheet is being maintained at PS Rain Bazar of Hyderabad City, he companyld number mend his criminal way of life and companytinued to indulge in similar offences soon after companying out on bail.
he should serve the Order on the detenu immediately under proper dated acknowledgment and arrange to read over and explain the companytents of the same in the language known to the detenu and report companypliance to the Government forthwith .
from 03 12 2019 to 28 02 2019.
The deceased Syed Aqeel, who was working with the detenu and residing nearby his house.
IV Adequate measures and remedies were available under ordinary law and hence there was numbernecessity to issue an order of preventive detention V The detention order dated 25 October 2018 was companyfirmed under Section 3 2 after a delay of eight days and VII The appellant was arrested in Crime number178 of 2018 and was granted statutory bail under Section 167 CrPC on 26 October 2018.
The record indicates that numberorder of companyfirmation was served on the detenu between 28 December 2018 the date on which it was purportedly passed till the detenu companytinued to be in detention until 27 February 2019.
He is a habitual offender and a Goonda as defined in clause g of Section 2 of the Telengana Offenders Act 1986 Act number 13 of 2018 SIT 3 On 26 October 2018, the appellant filed an application for bail 4 in Crime number178 of 2018.
The said cases are referred by way of his criminal background that the same are number relied upon.
The genesis of the criminal case was spelt out in the companynter affidavit filed before the High Court thus A 1 Khaja Bilal Ahmed was active member in AIMIM Party and elected as Corporator for GHMC Ward No 29 in 2009 Elections and later joined in TPCC and number working as Telangana State Minority Vice President.
Thus the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, affecting the public order adversely.
On 30 November 2018, a petition7 seeking a writ of habeas companypus was instituted by the brother of the appellant before the High Court challenging the order of detention dated 25 October 2018 and the order of the State government dated 2 November 2018 companyfirming the detention.
The order then sets out a reference to fourteen cases which were registered against the appellant under various heads of crime within the limits of Hyderabad City.
Such stale material will have numberbearing on the probability of the detenu engaging in prejudicial activities in the future.
The marriage of A 1 was solemnized in 2006 with Smt Rafath Sultana and due to some disputes, they got separated in March, 2018 in the presence of their companymunity elders.
wherein the detenu and his associates kidnapped the deceased to an isolated area of Majeedpur village in the limits of Abdullapumet P.S., and stabbed him to death brutally, thereby created terror and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of general public, apart from disturbing peace and tranquility in the area.
The brother of the detenu submitted an RTI application to the Superintendent, Central Prison Cherlapalli.
The order of detention was passed by the Commissioner of Police on the basis of the following satisfaction WHEREAS.
The order of detention states that The above cases are referred as his antecedent, criminal history and companyduct.
The same are referred by way of his criminal back ground only.
Ahmed, S o Khaja Hassan, was received in this institution, a companyy of the order was number served to the said detenu prisoner.
The dangerous activities of the offender and his associates are stated to have caused panic and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the general public living within the limits of Hyderabad City and Rachakonda Police Commissionerate, thereby disturbing the peace and tranquillity of the area in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The appellant was in detention from 25 October 2018 until 27 February 2019, for a period of four months without companyfirmation by the government under Section 12 In response to a Right to Information13 query dated 2 July 2019 lodged by the appellants brother with the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapalli, Medchal district, it was stated that the prison authorities had number received any companyfirmation or revocation of the detention order pertaining to the appellant The companyfirmation order dated 28 December 2018 was placed on the record for the first time during the companyrse of the present proceedings in the additional grounds filed in the Special Leave Petition The companyfirmation order dated 28 December 2018 found numbermention either in the High Court or in the first companynter affidavit which was filed before this Court on 18 July 2019 2018 12 SCC 150 1974 4 SCC 1 AIR 1964 SC 334 2012 2 SCC 176 RTI The companyfirmation order clearly stated that the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison should serve the order on the detenu immediately and It is a sine qua number for the companytinuation of the detention order beyond the period of three months that the appropriate government must companyfirm it within three months.
The query and the response provided are in the following terms S No Particulars Information Provided 1 While my brother was in detention under This institution has number received any the detention order dated 25 10 2018 till Confirmation or Revocation order 28 02 2019, did the Prison authorities pertaining to the Detenu Prisoner received any companyfirmation revocation of No.723, Khaja Bilal Ahmed, S o the detention order by the Government u s Khaja Hassan, from the date of 12 of the 1986 Act pursuant to production of said detenu prisoner appearance before the Advisory Board on before the Advisory Board of 03 11 2018?
These cases were registered between 2007 and 2016.
Emphasis supplied In other words, the order of detention was sought to be justified solely on the basis of Crime number178 of 2018 registered against the appellant under Sections 364, 302, 120B and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The Special Leave Petition was listed on 1 July 2019 when a numberice was issued returnable in two weeks.
The manner in which the order has surfaced, for the first time, in an additional companynter affidavit filed before this Court casts serious doubt on whether such an order was at all in existence on the relevant date.
In the recent past during the year 2018 the detenu was involved in Cr.
No 178/2018, u s Sections 374, 302, 120 B, 506 r w 34 IPC, Abdullapurmet P.S. of Rachakonda Police Commissionerate.,
The said case has been companysidered as ground for his detention.
I, Mahesh M. Bhagwat, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, am satisfied on examination of the material placed before me that the offender Khaja Bilal Ahmed has been repeatedly indulging himself in the manner of goondaism by acting a leader member of criminal gang and companymitted gruesome offences such as Murder Attempt Murders Rioting in an organized fashion, creating a feeling of insecurity to their life in the minds of General Public and thus disturbing peace and tranquility in society and acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of Public Order.
By a judgment dated 13 June 2019, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the order of detention, which gave rise to the proceedings before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
