Telangana High CourtMohd Sajid vs The State Of Telangana on 21 September, 2023Author:K. LakshmanBench:K. LakshmanHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN\n                                  AND\n              HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA\n\n     WRIT PETITION Nos.15973, 16283, 16995, 20240 AND\n                    21241 OF 2023\n\nCOMMON ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)\n\n      Heard Mr. Pasham Trivikram Reddy, learned counsel\n\nrepresenting Mrs. Ravula Sowmya Reddy, learned counsel for the\n\npetitioners and Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned Special\n\nGovernment Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate\n\nGeneral appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. All these writ petitions are filed to issue a writ of Habeas\n\nCorpus directing respondent No.3 to produce the detenus viz.,, Mohd.\n\nImran Khan @ Imran S/o Mohd. Aziz Khan, Shaik Basheer S/o Shaik\n\nChand, Md. Viquar Mehdi S/o Md. Khaja Pasha, Mohd. Ali S/o\n\nMd.Abdul Rasheed and Syed Raffiq S/o Syed Sharif, respectively,\n\nnow detained in Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad, and to\n\norder their release forthwith by setting aside the detention orders dated\n\n03.06.2023 passed by respondent No.2 and the consequential\n\nconfirmation orders, if any, declaring it as illegal.2KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                    W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch3.   Respondent No.2 passed the detention orders dated\n\n03.06.2023 against the detenus under the provisions of Section - 3 (2)\n\nof the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers,\n\nDacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-\n\nGrabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser\n\nOffenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders,\n\nScheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming\n\nOffenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms\n\nOffenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial\n\nOffenders Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986) (for short 'Act No.1 of\n\n1986'), under the category of 'Dacoit' as defined under Section - 2 (c)\n\nof the Act No.1 of 1986.4.   In W.P. Nos.15973 and 16995 of 2023, the impugned\n\ndetention orders were passed by respondent No.2 - detaining authority\n\nagainst the detenus - Mohd. Imran Khan @ Imran S/o Mohd. Aziz\n\nKhan and Md. Viquar Mehdi S/o Md.Khaja Pasha, respectively,\n\nrelying on four (04) crimes viz., i) Crime No.27 of 2023 of\n\nMusheerabad Police Station, registered for the offences punishable\n\nunder Sections - 395 and 419 ofIPCand Section - 25 (1A) of the\n\nArms Act, 1959, wherein the detenus robbed cash of Rs.40,000/-3KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                    W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch\n\n\nwhich was recovered and seized from their possession; ii) Crime\n\nNo.14 of 2023 of Asifnagar Police Station registered for the offence\n\npunishable under Section - 395 ofIPC, wherein an amount of\n\nRs.35,000/- was recovered and seized from the possession of associate\n\nof the detenus representing part of extorted amount; iii) Crime No.32\n\nof 2023 of Musheerabad Police Station was registered for the offences\n\npunishable under Sections - 395, 419 and 387 ofIPCand Section - 25\n\n(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959, wherein one knife, Suzuki Intruder Bike,\n\nmobile phone, Jio basic phone etc. were seized; and iv) Crime No.6 of\n\n2023 of Santoshnagar Police Station was registered for the offence\n\npunishable under Section - 395 ofIPC, wherein an amount of\n\nRs.35,000/- was recovered from the possession of associate of the\n\ndetenus representing part of extorted amount. In all the aforesaid\n\ncrimes, the concerned Courts granted conditional bail to the detenus.\n\nOn completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheets, and C.C.\n\nnumbers are awaited.i) The allegations levelled in Crime No.27 of 2023 are that the\n\ndetenus threatened the complainant at the point of knives with dire\n\nconsequences to kill him and dragged the complainant into a lonely\n\nplace in a lane beside Ramakrishna Medical Hall, where there was no4KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                    W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch\n\n\nillumination and robbed cash of Rs.50,000/- and absconded on their\n\nbikes. While leaving the scene of offence, the detenus also threatened\n\nhim to keep cash of Rs.3.50 lakhs ready by next day.ii) The allegations levelled in Crime No.14 of 2023 are that as\n\nper the directions of the detenus, their associate Muskan @ Heena\n\ncalled the complainant and took a selfie. Thereafter, the detenu in\n\nW.P. No.15973 of 2023 along with his associates called the\n\ncomplainant at King's Classic Function Hall, Gudi Malkapur,\n\nHyderabad and showed the selfie photograph of the complainant with\n\nMuskan @ Heena and misrepresented that she is his wife and\n\nthreatened the complainant with dire consequences and thereafter beat\n\nhim and at the point of knives to kill him demanded an amount of\n\nRs.4.00 lakhs. Out of fear, the complainant had paid an amount of\n\nRs.2,50,000/- to the detenus.iii) The allegations levelled in Crime No.32 of 2023 are that the\n\ndetenus along with their associates blackmailed the complainant\n\nshowing false ID Card of Police Department and threatened the\n\ncomplainant with dire consequences while the other associates beat\n\nthe complainant with hands and threatened him at the point of knives5KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                   W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch\n\n\nto kill him and demanded an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs, or else he\n\nwould publish the news about the conversation with Syeda Uzma\n\nFathima, an associate of the detenus. Out of fear, the complainant had\n\nagreed to pay some amount and asked the detenu in W.P. No.15973 of\n\n2023 and his associates to come along with him to his house. The\n\ncomplainant paid an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- to the detenus and\n\nassured them that he would pay the remaining amount.iv) The allegations levelled in Crime No.6 of 2023 are that on\n\n02.07.2022, Syeda Uzma Fathima (associate of the detenus) made a\n\nphone call to the mobile number of the complainant and discussed by\n\nmisrepresenting the facts that she was intending to put an order of\n\ncatering of food for 600 members.            In pursuance of such\n\nmisrepresentation, on 03.07.2022 under the guise of briefing and\n\nconfirming the catering order, the complainant went to the terrace of\n\nKings Khaja Hotel, Pisalbanda, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad, and while\n\nhe was speaking to the said lady, the detenus entered the room and\n\nbeat and kicked the complainant alleging that he was misbehaving\n\nwith the said lady. They threatened him with dire consequences and\n\ndemanded an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs to release him. Out of fear,6KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                    W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch\n\n\nthe complainant, the complainant had paid cash of Rs.5,000/- and an\n\namount of Rs.40,000/- by way of online transfer .v) That apart, the detenu in W.P. No.16995 of 2023 had also\n\npast history of involvement in two (02) more crimes viz., i) Crime\n\nNo.1026 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections- 384, 452 and 506 read with 34 ofIPCof Panjagutta Police Station;\n\nand ii) Crime No.472 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable\n\nunder Sections - 392 and 420 read with 109 ofIPCand Section - 3\n\nread with 4 of theMoney Laundering Act, 2012of Chikkadpally\n\nPolice Station.5. In W.P. No.16283 of 2023, the impugned detention order\n\nwas passed by respondent No.2 - detaining authority against the\n\ndetenu - Shaik Basheer S/ Shaik Chand, relying on two (02) crimes\n\nviz., i) Crime No.27 of 2023 of Musheerabad Police Station was\n\nregistered for the offences punishable under Sections - 395 and 419 ofIPCand Section - 25 (1A) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959; and ii)\n\nCrime No.14 of 2023 of Asifnagar Police Station was registered for\n\nthe offence punishable under Section - 395 ofIPC.           In both the\n\naforesaid crimes, the concerned Courts granted conditional bail to the7KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                   W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch\n\n\ndetenu. On completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheets,\n\nand C.C. numbers are awaited.i) The detenu had also past criminal history of involving in\n\neight (08) more crimes viz., i) Crime No.6 of 2007 registered for the\n\noffence punishable under Section - 380 ofIPC; ii) Crime No.145 of\n\n2009 registered for the offences punishable under Sections - 323, 452\n\nand 506 ofIPCand Section - 25 (1B) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959;iii) Crime No.54 of 2010 registered for the offence punishable under\n\nSection - 324 read with 34 ofIPC; iv) Crime No.79 of 2010 registered\n\nfor the offences punishable under Sections - 452, 324, 323 and 506\n\nread with 34 ofIPC; v) Crime No.58 of 2011 registered for the\n\noffences punishable under Sections - 509, 506 and 323 ofIPC; vi)\n\nCrime No.79 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under\n\nSections - 379 and 511 ofIPC; vii) Crime No.88 of 2016 registered\n\nfor the offence punishable under Section - 307 read with 34 ofIPCand viii) Crime No.3 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable\n\nunder Sections - 420 and 379 ofIPCof Rein Bazar Police Station.6.   In W.P. Nos.20240 and 21241 of 2023, the impugned\n\ndetention orders were passed by respondent No.2 - detaining authority\n\nagainst the detenus - Mohd. Ali S/o Md. Abdul Rasheed and Syed8KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                      W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch\n\n\nRaffiq S/o Syed Sharif, respectively, relying on two (02) crimes viz., i)\n\nCrime No.32 of 2023 of Musheerabad Police Station was registered\n\nfor the offences punishable under Sections - 395, 419 and 387 ofIPCand Section - 25 (1A) of the Arms Act, 1959and ii) Crime No.6 of\n\n2023 of Santoshnagar Police Station registered for the offence\n\npunishable under Section - 395 ofIPC. In both the aforesaid crimes,\n\nthe Courts concerned granted conditional bails to the detenus. On\n\ncompletion of investigation, the police laid charge sheets and C.C.\n\nnumbers are awaited.7.   Heard Mr. Pasham Trivikram Reddy, learned counsel\n\nrepresenting Mrs. Ravula Sowmya Reddy, learned counsel for the\n\npetitioners, would submit that the impugned detention orders were\n\nissued without application of mind. The detaining authority did not\n\nconsider the material properly. Therefore, there is no subjective\n\nsatisfaction by the detaining authority while issuing the impugned\n\ndetention orders. Thus, the detention orders are liable to be set aside.8. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader\n\nrepresenting learned Additional Advocate General would submit that\n\nthe allegations levelled against the detenus are serious and dangerous\n\nin nature and they formed into a criminal gang for committing such9KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                     W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch\n\n\ngrave and dangerous offences, such as dacoity/robbery/extortions by\n\nlaying honey trap with their lady associates. The detaining authority,\n\nconsidering the entire material available on record and after arriving at\n\nthe subjective satisfaction only passed the detention orders in order to\n\nprevent the detenus from committing similar offences. There is no\n\nerror in it.i) He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court inVijay Kumar v. Union of India1 andSmt.\n\nK. Aruna Kumari v. Government of Andhra Pradesh2.9.     Perusal of detention order, dated 03.06.2023, passed by\n\nrespondent No.2 would reveal that the detenus along with their\n\nassociates target the business/vulnerable people, beat them through a\n\nwoman, trap them by taking photographs with such woman and\n\nblackmail them threatening the victims to make the photos public and\n\nalso with dire consequences at the point of knives and extort money\n\nfrom them to earn easy and illegal money to lead a lavish life. It is\n\nalso mentioned that the aforesaid crimes would amply demonstrate the\n\nhabitual nature of committing crimes and creating large scale fear,\n\nterror and panic among the people adversely affecting the1. (1988) 2 SCC 572. (1988) 1 SCC 29610KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                  W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch\n\n\nmaintenance of 'public order'. The detenus voluntarily confessed to\n\nhave committed the aforesaid offences. Thus, the detaining authority\n\nhaving considered the entire material on record arrived at the\n\nsubjective satisfaction that the detenus have been habitually\n\ncommitting dacoities and dangerous offences by trapping the victims\n\nin honey-trap along with their woman associates in an organized\n\nmanner in the limits of different police stations of Hyderabad Police\n\nCommissionerate and, therefore, they are 'dacoits' as defined in\n\nClause (c) of Section - 2 of the Act No.1 of 1986. Thus, with a view\n\nto prevent the detenus from acting in a manner prejudicial to the\n\nmaintenance of 'public order' respondent No.2 - detaining authority\n\npassed the impugned detention order dated 03.06.2023.                 Thus,\n\naccording to the respondents, the case of the detenus falls under the\n\ncategory of 'Dacoit'.10.   Section - 2 (c) of the Act No.1 of Act, 1986 defines\n\n"dacoit" which means a person who either by himself or as a member\n\nof or leader of a gang commits or abets the commission of any of the\n\noffences punishable undersections 395to400of the Indian Penal\n\nCode, 1860.11KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                    W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch11. While passing the detention order, the detaining authority\n\nnot only considered the modus operandi of the detenus in commission\n\nof offences, but also considered the allegations levelled against the\n\ndetenue which are grave and serious in nature. Therefore, in order to\n\nprevent the detenus from committing similar offences passed the\n\nimpugned detention order.12. This Court vide order dated 01.09.2023 dismissed the writ\n\npetition filed on behalf of the detenue - Syeda Uzma Fathima, who is\n\none of the associates of the present detenus, vide W.P. No.17657 of\n\n2023, considering the nature of offences, seriousness of allegations\n\nleveled against her and the modus operandi adopted by her along with\n\nthe present detenus in commission of offences.13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court inAshok Kumar v. Delhi\n\nAdministration3 observed that preventive detention is devised to\n\nafford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for\n\nhaving done something but to intercept before he does it and to\n\nprevent him from doing.3. (1982) 2 SCC 40312KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                           W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch14.InRam Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar4, the Apex\n\nCourt held as under:"...Does the expression "public order" take in\n              every kind of disorder or only some? The answer\n              to this serves to distinguish "public order" from\n              "law and order" because the latter undoubtedly\n              takes in all of them. Public order if disturbed,\n              must lead to public disorder. Every breach of\n              the peace does not lead to public disorder.\n              When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is\n              disorder but not public disorder. They can be\n              dealt with under the powers to maintain law\n              and order but cannot be detained on the ground\n              that they were disturbing public order. Suppose\n              that the two fighters were of rival communities\n              and one of them tried to raise communal\n              passions. The problem is still one of law and\n              order but it raises the apprehension of public\n              disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The\n              contravention of law always affects order but\n              before it can be said to affect public order, it\n              must affect the community or the public at\n              large. A mere disturbance of law and order\n              leading to disorder is thus not necessarily\n              sufficient for action under theDefence of India Actbut disturbances which subvert the public order\n              are. A District Magistrate is entitled to take action\n              under Rule 30(1)(b) to prevent subversion of\n              public order but not in aid of maintenance of law\n              and order under ordinary circumstances. It will\n              thus appear that just as "public order" in the\n              rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was said to\n              comprehend disorders of less gravity than those\n              affecting "security of State", "law and order" also\n              comprehends disorders of less gravity than those\n              affecting public order". One has to imagine three\n              concentric circles. Law and order represents\n              the largest circle within which is the next circle\n              representing public order and the smallest4. AIR 1966 SC 74013KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                      W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch\n\n\n              circle represents security of State. It is then\n              easy to see that an act may affect law and order\n              but not public order just as an act may affect\n              public order but not security of the State."15.InVijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar5, a three Judge\n\nBench of the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the expression\n\n'habitually' and held that the expression 'habitually' would mean\n\n'repeatedly' or 'persistently' implying a thread of continuity, stringing\n\ntogether similar repetitive acts, and a single act or omission would not\n\ncharacterize as an act of 'habitual'. The Apex Court was of the\n\nopinion that to qualify as a 'habit', a person must have grown\n\naccustomed to leading a life of crime, whereby it would be a force of\n\nhabit, inherent or latent, in an individual with a criminal instinct, with\n\na criminal disposition of mind, that makes him as dangerous to society\n\nin general.16. As discussed above, there are serious allegations against\n\nthe detenus in the aforesaid crimes and so also the modus operandi\n\nadopted by them in commission of the aforesaid offences. Thus, the\n\ndetaining authority while invoking the powers under the Act No.1 of\n\n1986, has to consider the entire material on record and come to a5. (1984) 3 SCC 1414KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                     W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch\n\n\nsubjective satisfaction that due to the acts committed by the detenus,\n\nnature of offences and the manner in which the same were committed\n\nwould disturb the public order. To prevent the detenus from\n\ncommitting the similar offences, the detaining authority shall issue\n\npreventive detention order against the detenus. The Apex Court, this\n\nCourt has to consider facts and circumstances of each case on case to\n\ncase basis.17. There is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition that\n\nthe detention order shall be issued in rarest of rare cases, that too, to\n\nprevent the detenu from committing similar offences.Article - 21of\n\nthe Constitution of India enshrined the detenu the fundamental right of\n\npersonal liberty which is precious right enshrined to the citizens as per\n\nthe Constitution of India. At the same time, duty cast upon the 'State'\n\nas defined underArticle - 12of the Constitution of India to maintain\n\nlaw and order as well as public order. When there is disturbance to\n\nthe public order, it is the duty of the 'State' to invoke the procedure\n\nlaid down under the Act No.1 of 1986, to prevent the detenue from\n\ncommitting similar offences.15KL,J & SKS,J\n                                                      W.P. No.15973 of 2023 & batch18. As discussed above, the facts of the present cases would\n\nreveal that the detenus are having criminal history and the allegations\n\nlevelled against them in the aforesaid crimes are serious and grave in\n\nnature.   Certainly, the acts of the detenus in commission of the\n\naforesaid offences disturb the 'public order' and the impact of the said\n\noffences would create panic in the minds of the public. The detaining\n\nauthority having considered all the said aspects arrived at the\n\nsubjective satisfaction and passed the impugned detention orders.\n\nTherefore, viewed from any angle, we are of the considered view that\n\nthere is no error in the impugned detention orders, all dated\n\n03.06.2023 passed by respondent No.2. Thus, the writ petitions fail\n\nand the same are liable to be dismissed.19. The present writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. In the\n\ncircumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the\n\nwrit petitions shall stand closed._________________\n                                                   K. LAKSHMAN, J\n\n                                                   _________________\n                                                     K. SUJANA, J\n21st September, 2023\nMgr