2021 (8) TMI 1303 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking release of detenue - proximate or live connection between the acts complained of and the date of the Detention Order - infringement of public order - habitual fraudster - HELD THAT - 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 reason for not adopting a narrow meaning of public order in that case was because of the expression in the interests of which occurs to Article 19(2) to 19(4) and which is pressed into service only when a law is challenged as being unconstitutional for being violative of Article 19 of the Constitution. When a person is preventively detained, it is Article 21 and 22 that are attracted and not Article 19. Further, preventive detention must fall within the four corners of Article 21 read with Article 22 and the statute in question - considering that preventive detention is a necessary evil only to prevent public disorder, the Court must ensure that the facts brought before it directly and inevitably lead to a harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof at large. In YUMMAN ONGBI LEMBI LEIMA VERSUS STATE OF MANIPUR ORS. 2012 (1) TMI 200 - SUPREME COURT , this Court specifically adverted to when a preventive detention order would be bad, as recourse to the ordinary law would be sufficient in the facts of a given case, with particular regard being had to bail having been granted. It is clear that at the highest, a possible apprehension of breach of law and order 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. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proximity or live connection between the acts complained of and the date of the Detention Order.
2. Distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'.
3. Validity of the Detention Order based on the granting of anticipatory bail/bail.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Proximity or Live Connection Between the Acts Complained of and the Date of the Detention Order:
The petitioner argued that there was no proximate or live connection between the acts complained of and the date of the Detention Order, as the last act was in December 2019, whereas the Detention Order was passed nine months later on 28.09.2020. The court noted that the mere successful obtaining of anticipatory bail/bail orders was the real ground for detaining the Detenu. The court emphasized that if a person is granted anticipatory bail/bail wrongly, the state can always appeal against the bail order granted and/or apply for cancellation of bail. The court found the harm, danger, or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public as make-believe and totally absent in the facts of the present case.

2. Distinction Between 'Law and Order' and 'Public Order':
The court distinguished between 'law and order' and 'public order', citing various precedents. It reiterated that for 'public order' to be disturbed, there must be public disorder. Mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust affects 'law and order' but not necessarily 'public order'. The court emphasized that preventive detention must fall within the four corners of Article 21 read with Article 22 and the statute in question. It concluded that the Detenu's activities pertained to 'law and order' and not 'public order', as there was no widespread public harm, danger, or alarm.

3. Validity of the Detention Order Based on the Granting of Anticipatory Bail/Bail:
The court found that the reason for the Detention Order was the granting of anticipatory bail/bail to the Detenu in all the FIRs. The court held that preventive detention laws should not be used merely to keep a person in perpetual custody without trial and that the ordinary law of the land should be sufficient to deal with the situation. The court cited several judgments emphasizing that preventive detention is a necessary evil only to prevent public disorder and must be strictly construed. The court quashed the Detention Order on the ground that it was based on the mere fact of bail being granted, which could have been addressed through ordinary legal remedies.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the Detention Order on the ground that it was based on the mere fact of bail being granted, which could have been addressed through ordinary legal remedies. The court emphasized the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' and concluded that the Detenu's activities pertained to 'law and order' and not 'public order'. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the Detenu was ordered to be freed forthwith. The appeal was allowed.