LexAMEENA BEGUM versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CASE DETAILS AMEENA BEGUM v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 2706 of 2023) SEPTEMBER 04, 2023 [SURYA KANT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: An order of detention dated 24.03.2023 was passed by the Commissioner of Police against appellant’s husband. Whether the alleged acts of commission for which the Detenu has been kept under detention are prejudicial to ‘public order’ and whether all relevant circumstances were considered or whether extraneous factors weighed in the mind of the detaining authority leading to the conclusion that the Detenu is a habitual off ender and for prevention of further crimes by him, he ought to be detained. Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Off enders, Goondas, Immoral Traffi c Off enders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Off enders, Insecticide Off enders, Fertiliser Off enders, Food Adulteration Off enders, Fake Document Off enders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Off enders, Sexual Off enders, Explosive Substances Off enders, Arms Off enders, Cyber Crime Off enders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act 1986 – During the years 2022 and 2023, in quick succession, appellant’s husband had committed 9 (nine) more off ences and 5 (fi ve) FIRs were registered under various sections 186, 189, 353, 504, 420, 384, 354, 420, 323, 392, 195A of IPC – An order of detention dated 24.03.2023 was passed – Propriety: Held: The order of detention impugned failed to diff erentiate between off ences which create a “law and order” situation and which prejudicially aff ect or tend to prejudicially aff ect “public order” – Even if the off ences [2023] 11 S.C.R. 958 : 2023 INSC 788 958 959 referred to in the Detention Order, alleged to have been committed by the Detenu have led to the satisfaction being formed, still the same are separate and stray acts aff ecting private individuals and the repetition of similar such acts would not tend to aff ect the even fl ow of public life – The off ence in respect of the minor girl did exercise consideration of the Court for some time but it was noted that the Detenu was not arrested because of an order passed by the High Court on an application u/s. 438 of the Cr.PC. – Even otherwise, the gravity of the off ences alleged in Arun Ghosh case was higher in degree, yet, the same were not considered as aff ecting ‘public order’ – The only other off ence that could attract the enumerated category of “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” and an order of preventive detention, if at all, is the stray incident where the Detenu has been charged u/s. 353, IPC and where the police has not even contemplated an arrest u/s. 41 of the Cr.PC – On an overall consideration of the circumstances, the existing legal framework for maintaining law and order is suffi cient to address like off ences under consideration, which the Commissioner anticipates could be repeated by the Detenu if not detained – The order of detention is, thus, indefensible. [Paras 29, 39 and 40] Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Off enders, Goondas, Immoral Traffi c Off enders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Off enders, Insecticide Off enders, Fertiliser Off enders, Food Adulteration Off enders, Fake Document Off enders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Off enders, Sexual Off enders, Explosive Substances Off enders, Arms Off enders, Cyber Crime Off enders and White Collar or Financial Off enders Act 1986 – Application of mind in the order of detention dated 24.03.2023 – Proper or not: Held: The Detenu was earlier preventively detained under the Act vide order of detention dated 04.03.2021, since quashed by the High Court by its order dated 16.08.2021 – The Commissioner stated that the present order of detention is based only on 5 (fi ve) out of these 9 (nine) crimes (years 2022-2023), which are alleged to show that the Detenu’s activities are “prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, apart from disturbing peace and tranquillity in the area” – The Commissioner sought to project that he ordered detention based on the said 5 (fi ve) FIRs, indication of the past off ences allegedly committed by the Detenu – However, with the AMEENA BEGUM v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. 960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 11 S.C.R. quashing of the order of detention dated 04.03.2021 by the High Court and such direction havi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.