Summary
A detention order under the Telangana preventive detention Act of 1986 against an alleged ganja peddler was quashed. It rested only on three registered crimes and the apprehension that she would reoffend if released on bail, and did not show how public order, as opposed to law and order, was affected. Where bail conditions are thought inadequate, the remedy is cancellation of bail, not preventive detention.
Issues
- Whether a detention order based on registered crimes and the apprehension that the detenu would reoffend if granted bail was sustainable.
- Whether the order disclosed material showing that the detenu's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under Section 2(a) of the Act of 1986.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(a), with its Explanation, Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders [Land-Grabbers ... and White Collar or Financial Offenders] Act, 1986'Acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' requires activities causing or likely to cause harm, alarm or insecurity among the public, or grave widespread danger to life or public health. The order had to show how public order was or was likely to be affected; merely reproducing the statutory words was insufficient. (¶¶ 5, 10)
- Section 3 (power of preventive detention of, among others, a drug offender), Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders [Land-Grabbers ... and White Collar or Financial Offenders] Act, 1986The power may be exercised against a drug offender only on satisfaction that detention is needed to prevent action prejudicial to public order. That satisfaction was not validly recorded here. (¶¶ 2, 3, 10, 11)
Held
- Mere apprehension by the detaining authority that a detenu, if released on bail, is likely to commit similar crimes prejudicial to public order is not sufficient ground for preventive detention. If the detenu had violated bail conditions, cancellation of bail was the course to take. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Following Ameena Begum, a detention order that shows an intention to detain at any cost because bail was granted reflects extraneous considerations. Preventive detention, being a hard law, should not be used to bypass the ordinary criminal law or to keep an accused in custody when bail could not otherwise be resisted. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The detention order did not consider whether the bail conditions imposed in the earlier cases were insufficient to prevent further offences; it relied only on the registered crimes and the detenu's earlier conduct. (¶ 8)
- There is a fine distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'. Mere registration of three offences does not bear on public order without material showing that the narcotic drug dealt with was in fact dangerous to public health. Such material, and the recording of subjective satisfaction on how public order was affected, were missing from the order. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeal allowed. The detention order dated 10.03.2025 and the High Court's judgment upholding it were quashed, and the detenu was ordered released forthwith if not required in any other proceeding. Parties to bear their own costs.