Read Time: 07 minutes

Apprehension of breach of law can at best, be a ground for seeking a challenge against Bail order but cannot entitle the State to pass an order of Preventive Detention, said the Supreme Court in its judgment delivered on Monday.

A Division Bench of Justice RF Nariman and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, while quashing the detention order, observed,

“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.”

It was added that 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.

Close reading of the Detention order indicates that the reason for passing the same was not an apprehension of widespread public harm or danger but only a reaction by State on favourable Bail order secured by the Appellant, Court noted. It was further observed,

 “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 present case.”

The Appellant had approached the Top Court against judgment dated March 31, 2021, passed by Telangana High Court wherein the Court dismissed petition challenging a Preventive Detention order passed against the Petitioner’s husband, under Section 3(2) Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act.

“The modus operandi of the detenu in the alleged offences which were committed in quick succession would certainly disturb the public peace and tranquillity. So it is imperative upon the officers concerned to pass the order of detention, since the acts of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order,” the High Court had said.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, submitted that,

1. There is no proximate connection between acts complained of and the date of Detention Order.
2. Only ‘law and order’ problem may arise on the facts of the given case and not ‘public order’ problem as apprehended.
3. Detention Order was totally perverse as it was passed only because application for Anticipatory Bail was allowed.

Counsel for the State of Telangana, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, argued that Detenu was a habitual Offender who had created fear amongst the public, and since he was likely to commit similar offences in future, it was important to preventively detain him, as the ordinary law had no deterrent effect on him.

The Top Court while setting aside the High Court judgment, further said,

“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.”

Reliance was inter-alia placed on Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 SCR 709, Frances Coralie Mullin v. WC Khambra, (1980) 2 SCR 1095, Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 3 SCC 14, Union of India v. Yumnam Anand, (2007) 10 SCC 190.

Case Title: Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 733 of 2021