BANKA SNEHA SHEELA versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 02-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
BANKA SNEHA SHEELA
v.
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 733 of 2021)
AUGUST 02, 2021
[R. F. NARIMAN AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Preventive detention: Telangana Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, 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, 1986 – s. 3(2) – Preventive detention under – On facts, detenu
accused of cheating many people to the tune of more than Rs. 50.00
lakhs in the guise of providing good profit through investment in
share market – Five FIRs filed against detenu, being u/s. 420, 406
and 506 IPC – Detention order passed nine months after the filing
of the last FIR – Writ petition challenging order of preventive
detention – Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Mere
contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach
of trust certainly affects ‘law and order’ but to affect ‘public order’,
it must affect the community or the public at large – Allegation in
the FIRs pertain to the realm of ‘law and order’ wherein various
acts of cheating are ascribed to the detenu punishable under IPC –
Possible apprehension of breach of law and order can be said to
be made out – This may be a ground to appeal against the bail
orders granted and/or to cancel bail but not for a recourse to
preventive detention statute – Thus, the detention order is quashed
and the impugned judgment is set aside.
s. 2(a) explanation – Public order – Explained.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On the facts of the instant case, it is clear that
at the highest, a possible apprehension of breach of law and order
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 978
978
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
979
can be said to be made out if it is apprehended that the Detenu, if
set free, will continue to cheat gullible persons. This may be a
good ground to appeal against the bail orders granted and/or to
cancel bail but certainly cannot provide the springboard to move
under a preventive detention statute. Therefore, the detention
order is quashed on this ground. The impugned judgment is set
aside and the Detenu is ordered to be freed forthwith. [Para
24][1005-D-F]
1.2 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. Public order is defined in the Explanation to
Section 2(a) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities
Act to be a harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among
the general public or any section thereof or a grave widespread
danger to life or public health. As is well-known, the expressions
‘law and order’, ‘public order’, and ‘security of state’ are different
from one another. [Para 11, 12][988-G-H; 989-A-B]
1.3 There can be no doubt that for ‘public order’ to be
disturbed, there must in turn be public disorder. 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. There can be no doubt that what is alleged in
the five FIRs pertain to the realm of ‘law and order’ in that various
acts of cheating are ascribed to the Detenu which are punishable
under the three sections of the Indian Penal Code set out in the
five FIRs. A close reading of the Detention Order would make it
clear that the reason for the said Order is not any apprehension
of widespread public harm, danger or alarm but is only because
the Detenu was successful in obtaining anticipatory bail/bail from
the Courts in each of the five FIRs. If a person is granted
anticipatory bail/bail wrongly, there are well-known remedies in
the ordinary law to take care of the situation. The State can always
appeal against the bail order granted and/or apply for cancellation
of bail. The mere successful obtaining of anticipatory bail/bail
BANKA SNEHA SHEELA v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
980
SUPREME CO

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.