G H KHAJA BILAL AHMED versus STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1174 · Decided: 18-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 18 S.C.R.
KHAJA BILAL AHMED
v.
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1876 of 2019)
DECEMBER 18, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
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 – ss. 3(2), 12, 13 –
Detention order against appellant since he has been habitually and
continuously engaging himself in unlawful acts and indulging in
the acts of goondaism and committed gruesome and heinous offences
– Reference to fourteen cases registered against the appellant under
various heads of crime between 2007 and 2016 – Also reference to
criminal case of 2018 – Meanwhile appellant had got bail in the
criminal case of 2018 and when bail was granted, detention order
dated 25 October 2018 served on the appellant while he was still in
jail custody – On 02 November 2018, the said detention order was
confirmed – Challenge to, to the detention order dated 25 October
2018 and the confirmation order dated 02 November 2018 –
Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Ground stated by
the detaining authority in the detention order were stale and
irrelevant grounds and did not provide a live link with the detention
order – Manner in which the order of confirmation was presented
before this Court, casts doubt on the existence of the order of
confirmation – As regards the registration of the criminal case of
2018, the appellant was released on bail consequent upon the failure
of the investigating authority to file a charge-sheet within ninety
days which till date has not been filed – There was no reasonable
basis on which the detaining authority could have come to a
[2019] 18 S.C.R. 1174
1174
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1175
conclusion that on being released on bail, the appellant would in
all probability indulge in prejudicial activity and it was necessary
to detain him – Thus, the order passed by the High Court is set
aside and detention order is quashed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the order of detention states
that the fourteen cases instituted against the appellant between
2007 and 2016 were referred to demonstrate the “antecedent
criminal history and conduct of the appellant”. The order of
detention records that a “rowdy sheet” is being maintained at PS
Rain Bazar of Hyderabad City and the appellant “could not mend
his criminal way of life” and continued to indulge in similar offences
after being released on bail. In the counter affidavit filed before
the High Court, the detaining authority recorded that these cases
were “referred by way of his criminal background… (and) are
not relied upon”. The detaining authority stated that the cases
which were registered against the appellant between 2009 and
2016 “are not at all considered for passing the detention order”
and were “referred by way of his criminal background only”. This
averment is plainly contradictory. The order of detention does,
as a matter of fact, refer to the criminal cases which were instituted
between 2007 and 2016. In order to overcome the objection that
these cases are stale and do not provide a live link with the order
of detention, it was contended that they were not relied on but
were referred to only to indicate the antecedent background of
the detenu. If the pending cases were not considered for passing
the order of detention, it defies logic as to why they were referred
to in the first place in the order of detention. The purpose of the
Telangana Offenders Act 1986 is to prevent any person from acting
in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. For
this purpose, Section 3 prescribes that the detaining authority
must be satisfied that the person to be detained is likely to indulge
in illegal activities in the future and act in a manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. The satisfaction to be arrived at
by the detaining authority must not be based on irrelevant or
invalid grounds. It must be arrived at on the basis of relevant
material; material which is not stale and has a live link with the
satisfaction of the detai

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