2019 (12) TMI 1548 - SC - Indian Laws

Detention of detenue - habitual offender and a 'Goonda' - Murder - Telangana Offenders Act 1986 - HELD THAT - The order of detention in the present case contains a reference to fourteen cases which were instituted against the Appellant between 2007 and 2016. The chart provided on behalf of the State Government which has been extracted earlier indicates that out of the fourteen cases, five cases which pertain to 2012 were transferred to the SIT for investigation; there being no change in that position. Four cases pertaining to 2007 are pending trial. The Appellant has been acquitted in four cases of 2009, 2011, and 2012. The case of 2016 was compromised in a Lok Adalat on 8 September 2017. In the present case, the order of detention states that the fourteen cases 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 - The order of detention may refer to the previous criminal antecedents only if they have a direct nexus or link with the immediate need to detain an individual. If the previous criminal activities of the Appellant could indicate his tendency or inclination to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, then it may have a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. However, in the absence of a clear indication of a causal connection, a mere reference to the pending criminal cases cannot account for the requirements of Section 3. It is not open to the detaining authority to simply refer to stale incidents and hold them as the basis of an order of detention. Such stale material will have no bearing on the probability of the detenu engaging in prejudicial activities in the future. The detention order dated 25 October 2018 has to be set aside on the following grounds (i) reference to stale and irrelevant grounds in the detention order by the detaining authority; and (ii) the manner in which the order of confirmation dated 28 December 2018 was presented before this Court, casts doubt on the existence of the order of confirmation in the first place. As regards the registration of Crime No. 178 of 2018, the Appellant was released on bail consequent upon the failure of the investigating authority to file a charge-sheet within ninety days - Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order based on stale grounds.
2. Non-confirmation of the detention order within the statutory period.
3. Justification of preventive detention when the accused is already in custody.
4. Adequacy of ordinary legal measures versus preventive detention.
5. Procedural compliance with the Telangana Offenders Act 1986.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order Based on Stale Grounds:

The detention order referenced fourteen criminal cases against the appellant from 2007 to 2016. The Supreme Court noted that out of these cases, five were transferred to the SIT for investigation, four were pending trial, four resulted in acquittals, and one was compromised. The Court highlighted that the detention order must be based on a "reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a person based on his past conduct in light of the surrounding circumstances." It was found that the order relied on stale incidents, which could not form a valid basis for preventive detention. The Court cited *Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana* (2018) to emphasize that incidents from nine to fourteen years earlier could not justify current preventive detention.

2. Non-confirmation of the Detention Order Within the Statutory Period:

The appellant's detention from 25 October 2018 to 27 February 2019 was scrutinized. The Court observed that the confirmation order dated 28 December 2018 was not served on the appellant during his detention. This lack of service cast doubt on the existence and validity of the confirmation order. The Court referenced *Shibapada Mukherjee v. State of WB* (1974) to underline that without a timely confirmation order, the detention could not be validly sustained beyond three months.

3. Justification of Preventive Detention When the Accused is Already in Custody:

The Court examined whether the detention order was justified when the appellant was already in custody. The Court cited *Kamarunnissa v. Union of India* (1991), which stipulates that a detention order can be validly passed if there is a real possibility of the detainee being released on bail and indulging in prejudicial activities upon release. The Court found no reasonable basis for the detaining authority to conclude that the appellant would engage in prejudicial activities if released on bail, especially since no charge-sheet was filed in Crime No. 178 of 2018.

4. Adequacy of Ordinary Legal Measures Versus Preventive Detention:

The Court noted that adequate measures and remedies were available under ordinary law, questioning the necessity of preventive detention. The reliance on a single case (Crime No. 178 of 2018) for the detention order was deemed insufficient, especially given the appellant's release on bail due to the investigating agency's failure to file a charge-sheet within the stipulated period.

5. Procedural Compliance with the Telangana Offenders Act 1986:

The Court scrutinized the procedural compliance under the Telangana Offenders Act 1986. It was noted that the detaining authority's reference to the appellant's past criminal cases was contradictory and lacked a direct nexus with the immediate need for detention. The Court emphasized that the satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on relevant and current material, not on stale incidents.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and quashing the detention order. The Court concluded that the detention order was based on stale and irrelevant grounds, and the manner in which the confirmation order was presented cast doubt on its existence. The Court reiterated that preventive detention must be based on a reasonable and current assessment of the detainee's potential future conduct, not on outdated incidents.

← Previous Next →